Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 21 November.

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 21 November.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Rural Travel Costs

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: If he will provide an additional allowance to those in receipt of income support in rural areas of Scotland to take account of the essential travel costs that they incur; and if he will make a statement. [136321]

Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): No. The Government and the Scottish Executive have other measures in place to help rural areas.

Mr. Bruce: That is a rather disappointing if forthright answer. I remind the Minister of the first report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs which identified car ownership as essential even for poor people in rural areas, and transport as a specific problem. The Government have pursued a policy of consistently increasing transport costs across the board, applying the inflation addition only to the increase in benefits. Is it not time that representations were made to the Secretary of State for Social Security to review the extent to which that has increased poverty in rural Scotland?

Mr. Wilson: Before coming here, I took the precaution of checking on comparative petrol prices, and I was interested to learn that the Esso filling station in Inverurie, where the hon. Gentleman's face is undoubtedly well kent, is selling unleaded petrol at 81.9p a litre, which is exactly the same as in West Hampstead. Therefore, it is difficult to say that rural motoring costs are more

expensive than urban motoring costs. I also note today that the Liberal Democrats in Anniesland are against means-testing for pensioners and those in receipt of other benefits. I cannot think of a more divisive piece of means-testing anywhere in the country than giving people on income support additional help with motoring costs while not giving it to those who are not.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor's package last week will make a big difference to rural motorists in my constituency and elsewhere? However, he will be aware that there is a big discrepancy in petrol pricing between my constituency and the rest of Scotland, a matter which is being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading. When will that report be finished, and will my hon. Friend undertake to take whatever action is recommended by the OFT as quickly as possible?

Mr. Wilson: I am well aware of that report, which I await with keen interest. My hon. Friend is right: there is a huge discrepancy in petrol prices within what is generically known as rural areas and, for instance, between the Western Isles and places such as Inverness and Inverurie. My primary concern in the matter is the genuinely peripheral areas where people are paying perhaps 10p a litre more than they are in what are sometimes called rural areas but which offer urban prices, and I want to tackle that differential. There is a real case for the OFT to investigate in the Western Isles, and I for one will be extremely curious to discover why filling stations with large volume turnover which are not paying a higher wholesale price than on the mainland are charging much higher retail prices.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I congratulate you on your appointment, Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time that I have been here since your elevation to your post.

Mr. Eric Forth: Oh really.

Mrs. Ewing: I am honest.
We have had endless reports about price differentials in rural areas from the OFT, the Highlands and Islands convention and the Highland council, yet the matter has not been effectively addressed despite what was said late last night in the House on the Energy Act 1976 and the reserve powers order. I also draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the issue pertains particularly to those on low incomes, and those who want to go to the Benefits Agency to discuss the new deal are often deterred by the extensive costs that they have to pay to reach their destination.

Mr. Wilson: I agree with the hon. Lady's basic point. Through the new deal and other innovative approaches by the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency, help is available to people looking for jobs, and it is right that that should be so, whatever their specific needs and whether they are in rural or urban areas. If that helps people to obtain sustainable employment, that is a cost worth paying. Price differentials between areas need to be tackled, but we should not forget that taxation is the


same throughout the country, so wherever else the differentials come from, they do not come through the tax system.

Mr. Russell Brown: My hon. Friend is fully aware that fuel costs impact not only on private motorists but on business. Within the past 60 days, however, it has been drawn to my attention that some small businesses, usually in the habit of receiving bulk deliveries, have found that a few companies have escalated fuel prices for them, and it is cheaper to buy fuel at local filling stations. Surely that merits an investigation into what those fuel companies are doing.

Mr. Wilson: It is certainly not part of my role to defend every action of the fuel companies. I shall be pleased to refer my hon. Friend's comments to the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: It is interesting to hear the Minister avoiding the question again and again. I am not sure whether he has got his facts right about the filling station in Inverurie. I happen to know it well because my late grandmother-in-law used to own and operate it. [Laughter.] I do not see what is funny about that. She used to own it and serve the petrol there. If hon. Members had ever been to Inverurie, they would have seen her.
If the Minister accepts that petrol prices are an important part of essential travel costs in rural areas, why will the Government not listen to people who are suffering because we have the highest fuel tax in Europe, and cut fuel duty now? Is he proud of the fact that the Government have created in Scotland a level of rural poverty that we believed had been consigned to history?

Mr. Wilson: We have been waiting for some time to ascertain the Tories' remaining connections in Scotland. The hon. Lady had not previously struck me as a quine from Inverurie, but I am sure that she is proud of the designation. I received the figure from Inverurie shortly before lunch; unless a rapid price escalation has occurred in the meantime, my facts are right.
The hon. Lady said that we had the highest fuel taxation in Europe and she is right. However, she omits two salient facts. First, the proportion of the price of fuel that is taxation is significantly lower than when the Government came to power. We have reduced the proportion of tax in the cost of a litre of fuel.
The second fact is much more important. While our fuel taxation is high, a new study by Colin Buchanan and Partners has shown that our overall motoring taxation is below the median in Europe. In most countries, including France, Ireland and the Netherlands, motorists pay more in taxation although they do not pay so much of it at the pump.

Employment Trends

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: If he will make a statement on employment trends in Scotland.[136322]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): Employment in Scotland is at record levels, with 2,376,000 people in work and an employment rate of 73.4 per cent. I do not have the breakdown of figures for Inverurie, but I can write to my hon. Friend if he wishes.

Mr. Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to promote policies such as the new deal, which has helped 25,000 young Scots from welfare into work, and the working families tax credit, which helps up to 100,000 Scottish families? Will he decisively reject the Conservative party's policies to scrap the valuable allowances and schemes? Such policies would return us to the era of mass unemployment and despair. Will my right hon. Friend turn his back on that?

Dr. Reid: Yes, I can promise my hon. Friend that I will do that. I believe that we are beginning to benefit not only from the new deal but from the stable economic framework that the Government have created and that has resulted in the highest employment that we have ever had in Scotland and the lowest unemployment since 1976. It is worth emphasising that the reduction in unemployment is not only good in itself, but, along with the reduction in debt, allows us to put money towards vital services such as education, health and transport that are benefiting from the tough decisions that were taken. Rather than spending up to 50p in every pound of taxpayers' money on debt repayment and unemployment, we are allowed to put 83p of every pound towards vital public services.

Sir Robert Smith: Although I welcome the trend, I hope that the Secretary of State acknowledges that we must never become complacent, and that we must ensure that every possible job in Scotland is available. To that end, what role does the Secretary of State play in ensuring that the United Kingdom Government have a coherent policy on the dispersal of civil servants' jobs? Is he worried about the report in The Herald in Glasgow about the apparent decision of the Department for International Development not to locate jobs in Scotland because of the anxiety about the lack of a talented work force there? Will he ensure that his colleagues understand that Scotland is an excellent place in which to locate work and that it has a talented work force? Will he also ensure that the Government have a coherent strategy for dispersing civil servants' jobs?

Dr. Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government should, whenever possible, help to support British industry and disperse jobs. On dispersal of jobs to Scotland, the Department for International Development has as good a record as any other Department, or even a better one. As he will know, there is a major section of the DFID at East Kilbride. Moreover, thousands upon thousands of jobs in Scotland depend directly or indirectly on the Government and the civil service through Departments such as the Ministry of Defence. I am glad that the Government have been fighting to create jobs in the public and private sectors, such as with the recent decision to award a contract to the Govan shipyard, which can secure the future of that shipyard.

Mr. David Marshall: The Secretary of State has probably just answered my question. I was going to ask him whether he agrees with me that one of the biggest boosts to employment in the Glasgow area has been the recent welcome decision by the Ministry of Defence to award a substantial order to BAE Systems in Govan. Will he join me in congratulating the work force on their valiant efforts to secure that vital order? Will he tell the House how many such contracts would come to Scotland if it were not part of the United Kingdom?

Dr. Reid: As my hon. Friend feels that I have already dealt with his first question, perhaps I should answer the second. In the unfortunate circumstance of an SNP-dominated, separate Scotland, very few people would be involved in building the three rowing boats that would presumably form the basis of the SNP navy sailing endlessly between Gourock and Dunoon to bring security to the people of Scotland.
On a more serious note, as my hon. Friend said we should congratulate the work force at Govan on their efforts, not least their recent work on the auxiliary oilers. I am glad that we have been able to assist, but no one should be under any illusions because this is an extremely competitive industry internationally. All British shipyards face great competition not only against each other but internationally. It is down to the workers and the management to win contracts, although the British Government will do whatever we can to assist British workers.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Secretary of State aware that unemployment levels in 15 English constituencies and 6 constituencies in London are higher than the highest in Scotland, which regrettably is, I believe, your constituency, Mr. Speaker? Does the Secretary of State attribute that to the enormous amount of public money that pours north from England to assist with the process? If so, what will he do to put that injustice right and to ensure that a proper amount of public money is spent south of the border to give us the benefits that Scotland has had?

Dr. Reid: I would be the first to accept that there are pockets of unemployment in England and in the London area that are as bad or worse than in many parts of Scotland. We have constantly made the point that the difference within regions is as big as the difference between regions. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to attribute blame for those circumstances. Without being churlish, I contend that the blame lies with 18 years of Conservative government.
It is a fact that in London, as throughout the United Kingdom, since this Government came in we have diminished greatly the level of unemployment. We now have the highest record of employment that we have ever had, and we have the lowest level of unemployment since the 1970s. That is because the Government have created a stable economic framework that enables the private sector to create jobs, and through the new deal the Government have given individuals the confidence and the initiative to take up those jobs. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman's party is committed to getting rid

of schemes such as the new deal, which have done so much, and would unfortunately take us back to the boom and bust of the previous Tory Government.

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton): To take up the theme of injustice, does the Secretary of State agree with me that one of the greatest injustices was the lack of a national minimum wage? Under this Government, more than 140,000 Scots earn at least £3.70 an hour, whereas in the days of the previous Government it did not matter to them that some people earned only 70p an hour.

Dr. Reid: I entirely agree. There were those on the Opposition Benches who predicted that if we introduced a decent minimum wage, we would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs. That has not happened. We have introduced a wage level below which people should not be forced to drop—it is the first time in British history that that has been the case—and, at the same time, created many thousands more jobs than would otherwise have been created. It is a pity, indeed a tragedy, that so many of the things that we are now able to build up because of the hard decisions that we made at an early stage would be abolished by a Conservative Government. I am thinking not just of the new deal, but of many of the benefits that we have been able to hand out to pensioners—including, of course, the winter fuel allowance.

Civil Service

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister about proposals to give MSPs greater access to the civil service. [136323]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of matters.

Mr. Swayne: I think it quite important for us to know the answer to this question, rather than any other. Has the Minister discussed with the First Minister that First Minister's proposals to politicise the Scottish civil service?

Mr. Wilson: Not for the first time and doubtless not for the last, the hon. Gentleman is proceeding on the basis of a misapprehension. No such proposal has been made, and my colleague the First Minister is far too experienced to want for one moment to politicise the civil service any more than the civil service would want or allow him to politicise it.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, during my rather brief spell as a Minister in the Scottish Executive, I authorised a number of briefings for Tory and nationalist MSPs by the civil service? I am not sure whether anyone was any wiser as a result; we can but hope.
Is my hon. Friend also aware that those of us who believe in the United Kingdom see a strong case for more members of the United Kingdom civil service to be located in places such as East Kilbride? Following my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), may I urge him to keep trying?

Mr. Wilson: I like to think of my hon. Friend as having been given remission. It is very nice to have him back with us.
The point about civil service dispersal has been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Department for International Development has an excellent record of dispersing jobs to East Kilbride, and I have no doubt that that will continue to happen on a case-by-case basis where appropriate. Every interest must be considered: the interests of East Kilbride must be considered, as must the interests of those involved in dispersal.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: May I take up the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)? Will the Minister please confirm the position relating to the Scottish civil service? The Prime Minister told me in a written answer on 6 November that it was part of the home civil service. Does that mean that responsibility for adherence to the civil service code rests with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, rather than with the First Minister? May we have that clarified now?

Mr. Wilson: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to tell us that his grandfather owned a sweetie shop in Friockheim. But, as he says, the Scottish Executive civil service is part of the home civil service, and responsibility for it lies with the head of it, the Cabinet Secretary. The Cabinet Secretary has made it clear, in the most unequivocal terms, that there was no intention and no attempt to politicise the service—and nor will there be in the future, on the part of any section of this Government.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that it is right and proper in many cases for briefings to be given not only to supporters of the Government on these or any other Benches, but to Opposition parties, where appropriate. I have certainly pursued that policy, and will continue to do so.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance, but may we now have an assurance that the next time the First Minister starts making a fool of himself in the way he did just before taking office, it will be the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister who point out to him that the civil service code is the responsibility of this House, and that ultimately, if decisions in favour of changes are made, they will be made through the Cabinet Secretary, the Prime Minister and, if necessary, the Secretary of State?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend the First Minister took over that position in circumstances that none of us wanted. He is doing an extremely good job in a statesman-like manner.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Devolution Issues

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde of 25 July 2000,

Official Report, column 888, how many cases, in which she has intervened, have been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [136346]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Five of the cases in which I have intervened have been referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Dr. Godman: Is not there likely to be a build-up in the number of cases referred to the Judicial Committee, largely as a result of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into Scottish—and United Kingdom—law, and the establishment of a human rights commission for Scotland? Is the Judicial Committee the best means of resolving such cases, or should we reconsider setting up a constitutional court to deal with such matters?

The Advocate-General: That matter and others were fully discussed recently in our long debates on the Scotland Act 1998. I agree that in the foreseeable future there is likely to be an increase in the number of cases. Indeed, in view of the fact that a new jurisdiction is involved, that is inevitable. One reason for referring such cases to the Privy Council is to help to clarify some difficult issues—I hope that that will happen

Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

Mr. Jimmy Hood: When she last met the chairman of the Scottish Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to discuss the impact of human rights legislation on its work; and if she will make a statement. [136347]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): I have not met the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The board was responsible for applications made before 1 April 1996. Applications made on or after 1 April 1996 are determined by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The board was wound up on 31 March 2000, at which point the remaining board cases were transferred to the authority. I have not met the chief executive of the authority.

Mr. Hood: I am sorry to hear that my hon. and learned Friend has not met the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I would like to meet him myself to discuss a problem involving one of my constituents, who was sexually abused for 12 years. The paedophile was convicted in court but did not receive a custodial sentence. My constituent went to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to obtain proper compensation, but she was denied that and given a pittance. The Scottish Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denied my constituent her human rights. Will my hon. and learned Friend pass my concerns to the chairman of the compensation authority, whom I would like to meet to discuss the case?

The Advocate-General: I appreciate my hon. Friend's work on behalf of his constituent. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on an individual case. An appeals structure is, of course, associated with the


Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, and my hon. Friend will doubtless advise his constituent of that. I am sure that his remarks will be noted by the chairman.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not part of the problem that was raised in the question that the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) put to the Advocate-General related to the fact that a rigid application of the tariff structure is made in relation to the assessment of compensation for criminal injury? Is it not time to return to the situation that existed before the previous Government changed the system, which allowed those responsible for assessing compensation to do so at large, not according to rigid structures involving tariffs?

The Advocate-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman—or my friend, as I like to call him—is well aware that policy issues in that context are, of course, a matter for the Home Secretary and Ministers of the Scottish Executive.

Human Rights Act 1998

Miss Anne McIntosh: How many actions under the Human Rights Act 1998 have been brought before the Scottish courts; and if she will make a statement.[136348]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Unlike the situation involving devolution issues under the Scotland Act 1998, not all actions under the Human Rights Act 1998 are required to be intimated to me. I am therefore not in a position to give a figure for the number of cases brought in the first six weeks after the Human Rights Act 1998 fully came into force. However, my experience of the Scotland Act suggests that it is likely that people will not be slow to bring human rights issues to the courts.

Miss McIntosh: Can the hon. and learned Lady tell the House whether any actions, such as road traffic cases, have been delayed by the introduction of the measure into Scots law?

The Advocate-General: As the hon. Lady may know, the road traffic case was before the Privy Council last week. Indeed, I appeared personally in that case for a number of days. We are waiting for a decision from the Privy Council. The matter has come to the highest court, through the Scottish court system, relatively quickly.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Office of Supervision of Solicitors

Mr. James Plaskitt: What progress is being made to improve the services of the Office of Supervision of Solicitors. [136350]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The number of complaints has come down from 17,074 to 7,728 and

the OSS may be on target to hit the numerical figure of 6,000 by December this year. However, the Government continue to have very serious concerns about the quality of the complaints process. The only way to improve complaints handling is to resolve clients' problems at source, by instilling an ethos of client care throughout the legal profession.

Mr. Plaskitt: My hon. Friend will know that the OSS is based in my constituency, and I hope that he will agree that many of its staff are making valiant efforts to reach the targets that are set, but is he considering other reforms that may help to make further progress—for example, restructuring the funding and possibly using a polluter pays principle in relation to the fees paid by solicitors?

Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. He has been diligent in supporting the staff who work at the OSS, which, as he says, is in his constituency. It is right to say that the OSS and its predecessor were underfunded in the past and that clients suffered from a second-rate service as a result. I agree that there is a strong case for looking at the funding and the resources needed to operate the complaints and regulation arm of the Law Society. Perhaps those matters should be fixed by the OSS itself, then levied on the professions, rather than those who are regulated setting the resources available to the regulator, as is the current position.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Minister consider the case of a solicitor in private practice who has intervened in good faith in another failing practice to try to rescue the situation? In such a case, would his advice to the OSS be that it should continue to support that solicitor in trying to rescue the firm in difficulty?

Mr. Lock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Where a solicitor's practice has to be intervened upon, by definition the public have been let down by the legal profession and the duty that the legal profession as a whole has to the clients who have been let down does not stop when the new solicitor is brought in. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the new solicitor has a duty to do his best for the clients he inherits, but the profession as a whole, through the OSS, must take all reasonable steps to support that solicitor and to provide him with the assistance necessary to make up for the damage that has been done previously.

Immigration Appeals

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What further steps she proposes to take to reduce the time taken by her Department in dealing with immigration case appeals. [136353]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): May I take this opportunity—the first that has been presented to me—to welcome you to your new role, Mr. Speaker, and to congratulate you on your election as Speaker?
Since the spring, we have increased the number of courtrooms available to hear appeals to 103. Over the next few months, we will appoint an additional 40 full-time adjudicators, but further, to ensure that the courtrooms


are used efficiently, in July I opened a centralised administration office in Loughborough. We are also conducting a full review of the case listing procedures.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she recognise that we inherited a real mess when we took over government in May 1997, and that it is absolutely essential that we take such steps if justice is not to be denied? Although I recognise that not all the delays are in her Department, what will be its target for dealing with such immigration case appeals to show that we are delivering the justice that she would like to see?

Jane Kennedy: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The aim of the one-stop appeal process, which we introduced in October, is to streamline appeals to provide exactly that faster, more efficient service to genuine applicants, while reducing the opportunity for spurious appeals. It is worth reminding the House that applicants must now disclose all their grounds for appeal at the beginning of the appeal process, which allows for only one appeal decision to be taken and all the issues to be considered at one hearing. Only if circumstances have changed will the possibility of delay be reintroduced and a further appeal be heard. It is my belief that that new system will significantly reduce any unnecessary delay.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How many representations has the Lord Chancellor received about the new regulation, which will cost poor families seeking a visa visit to see a family friend £500? As that will cause much hardship to poor families in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, is it not an outrage that the regulation has been put through by the negative resolution procedure, without any debate whatever in the House of Commons?

Jane Kennedy: The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is no. I do not believe that the way in which the House has handled the regulation is an outrage. However, I recognise his concern. I have received a number of representations. I do not have the exact figure immediately to hand, but I will try to get it to him as soon as I can.

Legal Aid

Dr. Vincent Cable: What plans the Lord Chancellor has to review the house equity limits in determining eligibility for legal aid. [136354]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The Government have no plans to do so. On 31 July, we published proposals that may affect the contributions that a funded client has to pay towards his legal costs once eligibility has been assessed. Consultation on those proposals closed on 20 October. No decisions have yet been made.

Dr. Cable: Is the Minister aware that my constituents—and. I am sure, many others—are being told that because their house is worth more than £100,000, which applies to almost all of them now, they cannot expect entitlement to legal aid? Is he aware in particular of the Holmes case, which figured prominently in The Mail on Sunday a couple of weeks ago—an emotional

and difficult adoption fostering case, in which a family are having to pursue a dispute with the local authority through the national press because they cannot obtain the specialist legal advice that they need to pursue it through the courts, which is where it properly belongs?

Mr. Lock: The rule that equity of more than £100,000 bars one from legal aid has been in place for a number of years. The important figure for legal aid is the value of equity, not the value of a property. Only 6 per cent. of applicants for legal aid own their own houses outright, and the vast majority have equity of less than £100,000, so that particular rule does not bar individuals from getting funding in many cases.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How on earth can the Legal Aid Board justify handing out large sums of taxpayers' money to City slickers who make a fortune? They have big houses all over the place and somehow manage to get the large endowment, while constituents of mine who have not got two ha'pennies to rub together work for an employer who is not insuring any of his employees. The result is that when they have an accident, the Legal Aid Board says that it cannot give them any help because the employer has no collateral, so it is not worth pursuing him. It is time that that was sorted out.

Mr. Lock: My hon. Friend, as always, eloquently explains why there should be a cut-off limit for legal aid, and why it is entirely justifiable for people who have equity of more than £100,000 in their houses not to receive a share of scarce public resources, which can be put to much better use to help people who genuinely cannot fund their own cases.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) was couched in the soothing terms for which he is renowned, will he take the opportunity to confirm that the proposal that has been issued for consultation is that the client in receipt of assistance should henceforth make a greater, not a lesser, contribution?

Mr. Lock: I will attempt to soothe the hon. Gentleman, as he assumes I soothe others. I assure him that that is correct. The proposal is that those who have considerable equity in their properties should make some contribution to the cost of the legal funding provided by the taxpayer. A number of representations have been made to us. We accept that the move will create a more level playing field between publicly funded clients and those on middle incomes, but the Lord Chancellor and I are listening to those who are objecting. We are listening positively and sympathetically to the arguments advanced in response to the consultation paper. I am due to make our announcements next month.

Community Legal Service Partnerships

Mr. Steve McCabe: What progress his Department is making in developing Community Legal Service partnerships. [136355]

Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement regarding progress on the introduction of the Community Legal Service. [136357]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Following the launch of the Community Legal Service in April, the number of Community Legal Service partnerships has increased from 70 to 143, and is continuing to grow. The 143 partnerships involve 270 local authorities and cover 66 per cent. of the population of England and Wales. The CLS partnerships are working—with other key elements of the Community Legal Service, which are also making good progress—to improve the way in which legal services are delivered.

Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. I have a simple question: when can my constituents in Hall Green, and people in Birmingham generally, hope to realise some benefit from this promising Government initiative?

Mr. Lock: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, although his constituency is not yet in a CLS partnership area, the Legal Services Commission is in discussions with Birmingham city council and other potential local partners on the formation of a Birmingham CLS partnership. I very much hope that, with my hon. Friend's support, a partnership will be formed very soon.

Mr. Chapman: In the context of Community Legal Service partnerships, will my hon. Friend tell me what would happen if local authorities were to cut their funding to citizens advice bureaux, such as those in Bebington and Heswall in my constituency, whose work I greatly admire?

Mr. Lock: My hon. Friend is right. Citizens advice bureaux and other not-for-profit agencies provide not only high-quality legal services in important spheres such as employment and welfare benefits, but many other services that are needed by people on modest incomes or on benefits. We must be frank, however, and admit that for many years, citizens advice bureaux and other advice centres have had a precarious existence and been uncertain of the source of future funding. The formation of CLS partnerships, examination of different areas' priorities, and local authorities working with the Legal Services Commission should provide a framework to ensure much more secure funding in the future. Ultimately, however, funding decisions on not-for-profit agencies such as CABs rest with local authorities. Partnerships can influence, but local authorities will decide.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: But are the Government not seeking to impose on all local authorities, regardless of political control, an extra funding obligation without providing them with any more taxpayers' money? The Minister knows that I have raised this issue in a debate in Westminster Hall, but he may not know that since that debate, very many Labour-controlled and Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities have made the same protest as that made by Conservative-controlled authorities. Even Labour supporters are upset that they are

being forced to fund the partnerships without the Government properly supporting local authorities with extra funding to enable them to do so.

Mr. Lock: As I have explained before to the hon. Gentleman—obviously it needs explaining again—local authorities are under no obligation to participate in CLS partnerships. Although the Legal Services Commission is obliged to join in partnerships, local authorities are volunteers. Local authorities decide how they control the money to purchase legal services in their areas.

Lay Magistracy

Mr. Graham Brady: If she will make a statement on the future role of the lay magistracy. [136356]

Mr. David Taylor: What changes she plans in the role of the lay magistracy. [136361]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Government remain committed to the principle of the lay magistracy continuing to play a significant part in our system of justice. Sir Robin Auld is conducting a review of the criminal courts and has reached the provisional conclusion that the current jurisdiction of the lay magistracy should be preserved.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that the Government's view is that the lay magistracy is rooted in the communities from which it is drawn, that it is, and has been for centuries, an essential part of the English justice system, and that it is absolutely essential that the lay magistracy's role should not be downgraded by the current or any future Government?

Jane Kennedy: I think I answered that in the first part of my response, but I am happy to repeat my answer. Also, I believe that the lay magistracy now reflects a broader cross-section of society than before. The Department has achieved that by strenuous efforts, including advertising vacancies in minority newspapers and magazines. The magistrates also benefit from an extensive training programme. All those factors demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to the magistrates and their future.

Mr. Taylor: I declare an interest, as a member of the Magistrates Association. May I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister early-day motion 1097 in my name, which has been signed by 135 Members, of all parties? Does she agree with the sentiments in the motion, which expresses the congratulations of the signatories on the valuable role that magistrates play in delivering local justice in local communities? Would she care to lay to rest for ever the strong suspicion among magistrates that, in the Home Office at least, there is a secret agenda to transform the lay magistracy, to remove the role of JPs and to give us more of a European model?

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend should be reassured with regard to any future Government agenda for


magistrates. We are having the Auld review, and it is sensible to wait and see the results of it. The recommendations need to be considered together, and we will do that when we receive the report. It is not for me to rule out or to guarantee any option for the future. However, I take every opportunity to restate our high regard for the work of magistrates. They are volunteers, and they deal with 97 per cent. of criminal cases in their courts. We applaud their work.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Regional Standing Committee

Mr. Paul Clarke: When the regional Standing Committee will hold its first meeting. [136366]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I expect the regional Standing Committee to be established and I hope it will meet before the end of the Session.

Mr. Clark: Bearing in mind the wide-ranging performances within our regions—I know that mine, in the south-east, is doing good work—will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Committee will have a free hand to look into issues; particularly local economic regeneration issues, which are so important in a number of parts of the south-east?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend may recall that it is intended that the Committee will take business on a motion proposed by a Minister, but he is right to identify issues such as economic development in the regions as being among those that we anticipate the Committee will want to consider, along with issues such as transport strategies, tourism, sport and culture.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the President of the Council confirm that the Government do not see the Committee as in any way a substitute for genuine devolution to the regions? The Committee may be helpful in allowing Members of Parliament to assess what is going on in the regions, but given the lack of progress in accountable regional government and accountable democracy in the regions—as opposed to simply regionalising Government agencies—will she confirm the Government's intentions?

Mrs. Beckett: The Government have always made it plain that we recognise the importance of the development of regional strategies. The hon. Gentleman says—perhaps a little unfairly—that there has been a lack of progress. However, this Government set up the regional development agencies, which I understand the Conservative party proposes to abolish. The hon. Gentleman will know that representatives of local authorities work alongside people from the business community and the wider community. He will also know that there are many ideas floating around about how else regional strategies can be pursued, and how there could be other regional representation. However, he will also

know that the Government are anxious that any further move in this direction be taken at the wish of the people of a particular region, rather than as a top-down move.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is the inadequate regional Standing Committee the Government's response to the West Lothian question? How will it be constituted?

Mrs. Beckett: No, it is not the response to the West Lothian question. We have long argued, as did the Conservatives in the days when they were in favour of devolution, that there is no need for a different settlement in this place, and that those who are returned as MPs to Westminster should operate as MPs in Westminster.
It is intended that 13 people will make up the core group of the Committee's membership, and, we hope, will build up expertise on regional affairs in general—but it would of course be possible for any Member who represents an English constituency to attend.

Modernisation Committee

Mr. Norman Baker: What proposals she plans to bring before the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons; and if she will make a statement. [136368]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee has produced radical changes to our business. I anticipate that in the near future it will be chiefly concerned with monitoring those changes. Some other suggestions, including electronic voting in the Lobby, are being considered.

Mr. Baker: I intend no discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, or to your colleagues, but is it not appropriate for the Modernisation Committee to consider the method of election of the Speaker—and, perhaps more importantly, of the Deputy Speakers? Yesterday a Deputy Speaker emerged—Vatican-style, with white smoke—into the Chair. I make no comment on her appropriateness, but I think that hon. Members should have an opportunity to vote on such matters.

Mr. Tipping: As always, Mr. Speaker, Vatican-style elections yield the correct result. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Procedure Committee is currently considering the matter and taking evidence. The proposal is for a joint meeting of the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee.

Mr. John Maxton: Is my hon. Friend aware that of the six hours that it took to elect you, Mr. Speaker, two were taken up with traipsing through the Lobbies? Is he also aware that our decision last week to take on a Wednesday afternoon votes that would have taken place after 10 o'clock means that we could spend considerable time—wasted time, in my view—traipsing through the Lobbies on a Wednesday? Is it not urgent that the Modernisation Committee should consider electronic voting and introduce it as soon as possible?

Mr. Tipping: I hope that not only the Modernisation Committee but all hon. Members will have the


opportunity to consider electronic voting. An initiative that I anticipate will come to fruition very soon is an exhibition upstairs in the Upper Waiting Hall, which will allow hon. Members to look at the technology and discuss it.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Whatever the merits or demerits of these so-called radical reforms in our procedures, do the Government intend to reverse the situation that exists on a Thursday afternoon, whereby this House meets in two different places at the same time? Is that not an absurd anomaly?

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman, and all hon. Members, will have an opportunity to discuss those issues. There are different views. I believe that Westminster Hall, and earlier starts on a Thursday, are for the benefit of the House, but the House will have the benefit of that discussion, and a vote, on Monday.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Does the Minister understand the concern felt, especially among Conservative Members, that we need to do more than simply monitor the Modernisation Committee's proposals, and that there is serious unfinished business? For a start, the House has yet to vote on the question of Select Committees. I hope that he will assure the House that we will have an opportunity to vote on Select Committees, on the Floor of the House, before he starts his monitoring.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Lady took part in the debate last Thursday on the Liaison Committee's report. In my winding-up speech I said that when the dust had settled and people had had an opportunity to consider the arguments, and when the Government had had the opportunity to listen, we would review the way forward.

Mr. Steve McCabe: If she will make a statement on the Government's response to proposals from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. [136369]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Government usually respond to reports from the Modernisation Committee by inviting the House to agree to changes in procedure. Sessional Orders implementing the most recent proposals were agreed by the House last week. To date, the overwhelming majority of the Committee's proposals have been implemented.

Mr. McCabe: Does my hon. Friend agree that pre-legislative scrutiny is one measure that can lead to more considered and better quality legislation, and perhaps remove some of the more petty elements from our scrutiny system? Will he do everything he can to extend such scrutiny where appropriate?

Mr. Tipping: Like my hon. Friend, I am very clear that pre-legislative scrutiny has been valuable. I hope that the House will have opportunities in the not too distant future to do much more of it. I hope that in the course of time, a vast amount of pre-legislative scrutiny can take place.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: How many times in the past have major changes to the procedures of the House been introduced which have not been reached through consensus?

Mr. Tipping: Major changes are agreed by hon. Members themselves, on a free vote. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not proposing that a small group of Members, including some of his colleagues, should be able to veto proposals that find consent among the majority of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Millennium Date Change

Mr. Ben Chapman: What assessment she has made of the efficacy of the arrangements made for the millennium date change. [136370]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave on 19 April, which appears in the Official Report at column 425W. The arrangements that were put in place to handle the millennium date change were successful, with the UK almost untouched by the bug. That did not happen by accident.
The work has delivered far-reaching benefits which were drawn out in a command paper entitled "Modernising Government in Action: Realising the Benefits of Y2K", which I published on the same date.

Mr. Chapman: I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend and her colleagues in making sure that the preparations for dealing with the millennium bug were a success. Will she confirm that to a degree, those preparations and that contingency planning have proved relevant to dealing with the fuel issue? Does she agree that the lessons learned from the millennium bug planning could be read across, and thereby helped large companies with the contingency planning needed to lessen disruption for their customers?

Mrs. Beckett: On behalf of all those who did so much work on the matter, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is entirely right: during the recent fuel supply difficulties a considerable number of companies were able to draw on the continuity plans assembled over the millennium period, not least those drawn up by the health service and various large fuel supply companies. Those involved in the work of Action 2000 have been contacted by a number of people thanking them for the work that they had done, and saying what a help it had proved to be.

Business-Government Links

Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What response she has had on her initiative to improve links between the Government and business. [136372]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I informed the House on Thursday 11 May of the decision to establish the business co-ordination unit in my Department—my answer appears in the Official Report at column 433W. I am pleased to report that the unit is now fully staffed and operational, and is making a significant contribution to improving Government contact with all sectors of business across the UK. The responses to the establishment of the BCU of which I am aware have been uniformly positive.

Mr. Wright: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the BCU will be of positive benefit to the chamber of commerce in Great Yarmouth? What will the new initiative target for the business community be?

Mrs. Beckett: I recently had the pleasure of meeting the presidents of the British Chambers of Commerce, and I can tell my hon. Friend that that organisation has very much welcomed the establishment of the BCU. Part of the unit's purpose is to ensure that a better system is devised for the many groups and bodies who want to have contact with Ministers. The aim is to establish such contacts across Government, not merely in Departments that customarily deal with the business community in their daily work.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that the right hon. Lady has set herself the admirable objective of improving links with business, will she say when she intends to study the speech made by Mr. Chris Humphries, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, on 20 January this year? He said that despite their rhetoric, the Government had dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness.

Mrs. Beckett: I am indeed aware of that speech, and have discussed the issue with Mr. Humphries. However, I am sorry and surprised that the hon. Lady—[Laughter]—I beg his pardon, I meant the hon. Gentleman. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not quoted some of the more recent speeches made by

Mr. Humphries, which have welcomed many of the steps that the Government have taken in their partnership with business.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Modernisation Committee

Helen Jackson: What response the Government have made to proposals of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve the efficient working of the House. [136373]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Modernisation Committee was set up to propose changes to improve the efficient working of the House of Commons, which has already accepted Government motions to implement the programming of legislation and to defer voting. I anticipate that the House will shortly be invited to approve the continuation of the experiment with Thursday sittings and sittings in Westminster Hall.

Helen Jackson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the amount of work that she has done, through the Modernisation Committee, to improve the efficiency of the House and its workings. Does she agree that there is room for further improvement, as the years go by in this century, to see how best the new availability of information technology and communications systems can be brought into all our working practices, even in Committees?

Mrs. Beckett: I, in turn, am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least for her work on the Modernisation Committee, as well as for her remarks. She is right that the issue has been raised across the House, and I believe that the House will need to consider it. We cannot and should not turn our backs on the opportunities opened up by new technology, but should consider how it can most effectively supplement and make more efficient the work that Members carry out.

NHS

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the resources being made available to local health services in all parts of England, and the priorities for reform in the NHS.
In the past three years the NHS has treated 2.3 million more patients. It now employs 10,000 more nurses and more than 5,000 more doctors. Waiting lists for in-patient treatment have fallen by 126,000. For the first time since records began, last year saw the number of patients waiting for out-patient appointments and in-patient treatments falling simultaneously. Every accident and emergency department that needs it, and 1,000 general practitioners' surgeries, are being modernised. The biggest hospital-building programme in the history of the NHS is under way.
After decades of neglect, the NHS is now expanding its services to patients. For two decades or more, the NHS budget rose by an average of just 3 per cent. a year. In the previous Parliament it rose by rather less than that—by just 2.6 per cent. In this Government's first two years in office, spending on the NHS did not rise as quickly as many had hoped. However, the tough choices that we took then are paying off for the NHS now. Interest rates and inflation are at historic lows. Unemployment is down, employment is up. The public finances are back in balance. A strong and growing economy is providing the foundation for strong and growing public services.
Over the five years from 1999, the NHS budget will grow by one half in cash terms and by one third in real terms. This year, and for the next three years, the real-terms annual increase in NHS funding will be 6.3 per cent—twice the trend growth of the past few decades.
Today I can inform the House of the funding allocations for each health authority in England. The cash is for revenue purposes. I will be making announcements in due course about capital resources. Details of today's allocations for the local health authorities in right hon. and hon. Members' constituencies are available in the Vote Office. I have also written today to all right hon. and hon. Members with details.
For the first time in the history of the NHS, I am making outline revenue allocations for the next three years rather than just for a single year ahead. This will allow every local health service to plan with confidence for the medium term rather than just for the short term. As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, there has been too much boom and bust in NHS funding in the past. Today we bring that to an end. [Interruption.] I knew that would excite them, Mr. Speaker. From April next year, health authorities will receive an average cash increase of 8.5 per cent. No health authority will receive less than 7.8 per cent. The average rise in cash terms for a health authority next year will be £29 million.
I can also announce today that every health authority will benefit from a further rise of at least 6 per cent. in 2002–03 and a further increase of at least 6 per cent. in 2003–04. Those increases are the minimum that all health authorities can expect to receive, with final allocations to be made in the autumn of next year and the year after. I know that the House will want to compare the increase

in investment for next year and the following years with allocations in previous years. For the benefit of right hon. and hon Members on both sides of the House, let me explain that in the last year of the last Parliament the NHS budget actually fell in real terms. I am pleased to tell the House that, after years of under-investment, the NHS is now growing again.
Of course, different parts of the country have different health needs. The Government are currently reviewing the formula according to which we distribute NHS cash to ensure that it is better focused on addressing those needs properly and fairly. In the meantime, I will make a number of important changes for next year. First, I am more than doubling, to £130 million, the resources available within health authority allocations to help address some of the appalling health inequalities that scar our nation. Life expectancy for a baby boy born in Manchester is six and a half years less than that for a baby born in east Surrey. The existing funding formula does not take full account of the excess morbidity and mortality from cancer, coronary heart disease and other causes in those areas, as expressed through rates of years of lost life. The extra funding will help places in the north and midlands such as Bury, Rochdale, Calderdale, Kirklees, Dudley, Leeds, Leicestershire, Manchester, Newcastle, north-west Lancashire, Nottingham, Sandwell, Tees and Wakefield. It will also help areas in the south such as Bedfordshire, Brent, Cornwall, east Kent, Herefordshire, Lambeth and south and west Devon. Those extra resources will help to narrow the health gap between the better-off and the worst-off.
Secondly, I am making available a further £65 million to pay a new cost of living supplement for 100,000 qualified nurses, midwives, health visitors and those in professions allied to medicine, such as physiotherapists and radiographers, who work in the highest-cost parts of England. From next April, there will be a minimum of £600 extra for every one of these staff working in London, over and above current London weighting, and up to £1,000 for ward sisters and senior nurses in the capital. Staff in those groups who are working in the highest-cost areas outside London such as Avon, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, Sussex and Wiltshire will receive between £400 and £600 each. Those extra resources will help in our efforts to recruit an extra 20,000 nurses and 6,500 therapists to the NHS over the next four years.
There is a one further change that I am making to the way the local health service is funded. In the past, there have been too few means to drive up performance and tackle unacceptable variations between local health services. If the NHS is to make progress, it must move from a position in which it bails out failure to one in which it rewards success. The best NHS organisations should have more freedom and more resources to expand their services to more patients, and the worst should have more help to enable them to improve. For next year, I am making available a new £100 million performance fund to provide a clear financial incentive to all parts of the NHS to improve local services. The fund will rise to £500 million by 2003–04. The best local services will be free to spend their share of the fund on equipment, facilities or cash bonuses for staff. The worst will still get a fair share of the fund, but it will be held by the new modernisation agency to use for targeted external assistance to help turn round performance. We will no


longer tolerate second-rate services in any part of the NHS. The lottery in patient care must now come to an end.
The extra investment that we are making will bring about the major reforms that the NHS needs. At present, services are too slow, standards too variable and staff too often run off their feet. In July, the Government published the NHS plan, which describes the radical reforms necessary to redesign the service around the needs of its patients. The money that I am allocating today will raise the pace of implementation. Next month, I will publish a detailed NHS plan implementation programme for the health service and for social services. It will detail the investment and the progress that will have to be made over the next year—for example, in improvements in hospital standards, and in services for elderly people, children in care and patients with mental illness.
The next year will see a major expansion in beds, staff and services. Improved co-operation between health and social services, for example, will deliver more packages of intermediate care support to benefit 60,000 elderly people, so that in every council area in every part of the country more older people can live independently at home. The result will be lower rates of delayed discharges from hospitals in all parts of the country. It is crucial that the resources now available to the health service should allow a proper focus on how we can bring about improvements in health, not just an increase in the scale of investment in health services.
The allocations to health authorities will fund a further £450 million to help tackle our country's biggest killers—cancer and coronary heart disease. Our rates of both diseases are too high, and both are largely preventable. The extra resources will mean more drugs to combat cancer and heart disease, more help for people to give up smoking—a major cause of cancer and heart disease—and more operations provided more quickly for more people with cancer and heart disease. By December next year, for example, there will be a new maximum one-month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to treatment in hospital for men with testicular cancer, for children with cancer and for patients of all ages with acute leukaemia. Similarly, by March 2002, three in four eligible heart attack victims will receive life-saving, clot-busting drugs—thrombolysis—within 30 minutes of arrival at hospital. At present, many people wait twice as long.
Waiting is the public's number one concern about the health service. That is why the Government have placed such strong emphasis on winning the war on waiting in the NHS. The NHS plan set out how waiting times will reduce by 2005. The waiting time for seeing a GP will fall to 48 hours, for being seen in accident and emergency departments to an average of 75 minutes, for out-patient appointments to a maximum of three months, and for in-patient treatment to a maximum of six months. By 2008, there will be waits for hospital treatment of weeks rather than months.
The investment that we will make over the next year will deliver real progress towards those shorter waiting times. At present, 126,000 patients wait more than 26 weeks for an out-patient appointment. By March 2002, no one should wait that long, and the number of people waiting for 13 weeks will also have been reduced.

Similarly, the maximum waiting time for in-patient treatment is currently 18 months—a target set, but never achieved by the previous Government. We estimate that about 50,000 people wait between 12 and 18 months for a hospital operation. By spring 2002, the NHS will have reduced the numbers waiting more than 12 months, and the maximum waiting time will have been reduced from 18 to 15 months for all patients.
I recognise that these new maximum waiting times are still too long, but they represent the first instalment on real progress towards the NHS plan objectives. The NHS is in a position to deliver substantial improvements for patients because of the commitments that the Government have made to it. While some in this House say that they have philosophically moved on from the NHS, the Government remain committed to the NHS and its survival and modernisation. We have made our choice. Our choice is an NHS providing care according to need, not ability to pay. Our choice is a tax-funded health service, available to all, and not a privatised system of care available to only a few. Our choice is long-term investment in our key public services, not cats in those services. Our choice is record levels of investment, alongside a radical programme of reform.
The step change in the resources that we have made available to the NHS must now produce a step change in results. None of what follows will be easy. Much of it will take time. However, the NHS now has the best opportunity that it has ever had to bring about the radical changes needed to give patients better and faster services. The resources that I have committed today will bring about improvements in health and health care in all parts of the country. I commend them to the House.

Dr. Liam Fox: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for his courtesy in making a copy available to the Opposition in advance.
Given the huge potential importance of the NHS plan, I am sorry that the House has not yet held a debate on the full plan in Government time, but as the Leader of the House is sitting on the Treasury Bench, I hope that she might take note of that point and make time available so that the House can discuss the plan in the detail it deserves.
The Secretary of State did not say much that was new; in many cases, he made a series of re-announcements, but we have got used to that. However, we very much welcome parts of the statement. As we have said previously, we welcome the increased funding that the Government are making available. Again, we pledge to match that increase in NHS funding.
I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's attempts to tackle inequalities in health care. That is most important. But it must be done in such a way as not to rob Peter to pay Paul, and by levelling up services rather than levelling them down.
I welcome the extra resources for staff in high-cost areas; I notice that the Secretary of State has kindly—as might have been expected—included my own. I welcome the fact that cancer and cardiac care are to be made a priority; as I have often pointed out to the House, that would also be the priority under the next Conservative Government. I particularly welcome the specific mention of acute leukaemia. I undertook my junior doctor training in a leukaemia unit in the Glasgow Royal infirmary; that disease should be one of the priorities.
I also welcome three-year budget setting, although there is no use in doing that if there is constant interference from the centre and a constant re-setting of priorities once budgets have been set locally.
The Secretary of State says that the NHS is growing again. This year, however, the Government's figures show that since last winter there has been a reduction in the number of intensive care beds, acute beds and residential care beds. We now have the concept of the funded bed blocker—whereby people who already have a social services funding package block acute beds because there is nowhere to put them. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about that?
Will the Secretary of State give the House answers to the following specific questions? He says that, over the next year, there will be an expansion in the number of beds. Where will they be? How many extra beds does he expect to be provided in the NHS? In which sectors will they be? Will they be in the hospital sector? What is his estimate of the impact on bed numbers of the private finance initiative?
The Secretary of State refers to the allocations to health authorities—funding of a further £450 million to help to tackle cardiac and cancer care. Is that ring-fenced money? Will he clarify that point so as to avoid misinterpretation of his statement?
There is to be more help for those people who want to give up smoking. The Government's cancer tsar says that their anti-smoking strategy is "misdirected" and poorly managed. What is the position on Zyban? In April, the Department of Health promised GPs guidance on who should receive the drug and in what circumstances. That guidance never materialised, and there is now piecemeal provision. Will the Secretary of State clear up that matter?
The Secretary of State tells us that by March 2002, three in four eligible patients will receive thrombolysis treatment, but that means that one in four will not. What conceivable reason could there be for not making that treatment available?
The right hon. Gentleman talks about reducing inequalities, but as he is aware, one of the big problems is not only the provision of services but their uptake. For example, he will know of the problems of uptake in the inner cities for programmes such as those for cervical smears. What specific measures will he introduce to make sure that uptake matches any increased provision?
The Secretary of State talks about redefining the formula for allocating funding. Can he give the House an indication of how he expects that to work, although I do not expect him to provide the details now?
The Secretary of State talks about the lottery in patient care coming to an end. We have all read the spin today about extra money being made available for cancer drugs. Can he tell us the position on that? As the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has been given the criterion of affordability by the Government, what impact will his statement and the funding that he makes available have on affordability of cancer drugs? What does he expect to happen? It is pointless saying that cancer will become a priority and it is pointless even providing more specialists if there is not then access to diagnostics and the treatment is not made available to patients. That is the most important issue of all.
I welcome the recent concordat that the Secretary of State has signed with the private sector. It could allow for the type of public-private partnership that is enjoyed

in most European countries. If the Government have genuinely moved ideologically, we welcome that. However, will he confirm that the concordat is not just about NHS doctors treating NHS patients in private facilities, but that it will allow primary care trusts to buy services for patients in the private sector using only NHS funding? That is our understanding from reading it.
The Secretary of State's statement promises much, but he has promised before. The improvements that he claims exist are not borne out by the experience of the public. Only yesterday we heard that the waiting time to get on the waiting list had gone up. Where the Government make improvements, we will welcome them. However, they are now setting targets for hospital waits for 2008—a far cry from the early pledges and "24 hours to save the NHS". The Prime Minister recently said that he did not understand the scale of the problem that he faced in the NHS. Nothing that the Secretary of State has said today reassures us that he does, either.

Mr. Milburn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his grateful acceptance of the cash. Perhaps that is not surprising. I remind him that, in the last year of the previous Government, his health authority received an increase of about 3 per cent. This year, it is receiving an increase of just under 9 per cent.
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his latter-day conversion to the idea of tackling inequality. In 1992, he was the hon. Member who said:
poverty, poverty, poverty—la, la, la,…It is just boring for Conservative Members.—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 636.]
On the specific issues of the funding formula that the hon. Gentleman raises, he will know, as well as I do, that there is no perfect means of allocating money to health authorities. Most people in the health service now recognise that the current funding formula simply does not do the trick and does not get the money to where it is most needed. We have therefore set up a review that is being conducted by an expert panel. It is due to report over the next few years. It is a complicated issue, and it is important that we conduct the review in parallel with the local government review of funding allocations. lf, as most hon. Members want, we are to move towards closer co-operation between health, housing and social services, it is important to get the funding allocations for local government and the health service much more in tandem than they perhaps are now.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of cancer drugs, and I can confirm that 13 up-to-date cancer drugs have been referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. It is due to report in the summer of 2001, and we have made provision in the health authority allocations. However, that provision will depend on what NICE comes up with. It is true that, when we have previously referred cancer drugs to NICE—most notably, the taxanes, which we referred last year and this year—the result has been a dramatic uptake in the number of patients receiving high-quality cancer drugs. I think that one in four patients with ovarian cancer and three in four patients with breast cancer did not receive taxanes before the NICE recommendation. However, every patient who needs taxanes now receives them, thanks to the decisions of NICE, a body that we established and the Conservatives opposed. We are investing extra money in the health service. The Conservatives opposed that. Those are the results of the choices that we have made.
On intensive care beds, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) will find that this winter there are more intensive care beds than there were last winter. We allocated a further £150 million, and I expect there to be substantially more than 300 extra critical care beds.
On bed blocking, the rate of delayed discharges is falling, certainly from the level that we inherited from the previous Government. As for the number of beds, the hon. Gentleman is aware that yesterday I announced the third wave of major hospital redevelopments. Many of those will be built as part of the private finance initiative. I have also stipulated that in the third wave, the 18 major new hospitals should help to increase the number of hospital beds, thereby helping to reverse a 30 or 40-year trend of decline.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the point that he made about Professor Mike Richards, the cancer tsar, is wrong.
On waiting times, the report published yesterday is factually inaccurate. The same company produced a report last summer. It was factually inaccurate then; it is factually inaccurate now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Milburn: I still have more inaccuracies to relate to hon. Members.
The hon. Gentleman's most serious factual inaccuracy was at the beginning of his remarks. He said that the Conservatives would match Labour's record levels of health investment, but they cannot. We have made our choice. We chose to invest more in the health service. They have made their choice, too. They chose not to vote with us when we wanted £400 million-worth of extra tobacco revenue to go directly to the national health service. Just today, the hon. Gentleman is choosing to use £500 million which could have gone into the NHS to subsidise people with private health insurance.
The Conservatives cannot match us on health service expenditure. Indeed, their programme of cuts would result in £900 million less for local health services—the equivalent of £9 million less for every health authority in the country. That is the Tory guarantee on health: £9 million-worth of cuts in every local health service in the land.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to call as many hon. Members as possible, so I ask for questions to be brief.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On behalf of the people of Calderdale, who will receive an 8.6 per cent. increase in funds, I thank my right hon. Friend for today's announcement. He will know how we suffered under the previous Government's funding. We are delighted that we have a new hospital and will receive the increase.
Will some of the money that has been allocated be targeted on the elderly who, with the right care package, could be cared for at home instead of taking up hospital beds that they do not need and which add to the problems?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I can give her that assurance. When we

publish details next month of the roll-out of the NHS plan, she will see that it includes commitments to improving elderly care services. We need to ensure that we get rid of some of the perverse incentives and end the practice that puts all elderly people in care homes when they want to stay at home. We can do that by ensuring that there is more co-operation between health care and social care services, by taking advantage of the flexibilities under the Health Act 1999 and, most importantly, by providing the extra investment that we are making in the health care and the social care systems.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the additional money for the health service and the useful innovation of three-year budgeting, but will the Secretary of State confirm whether the new cost of living supplement for key staff is over and above the forthcoming annual pay review? Until we have seen the figures awarded in that review, is it not difficult to assess what the impact will be on each health authority area as it tries to tackle the many targets that the Government set in the national plan and, indeed, again today? Is there a hierarchy of targets?
The Government are committed to providing free nursing care from halfway through the financial year, which is mentioned in today's settlement. How will that money be channelled? Will it go through social services or are we to assume that it is in the budget figures that we have been given today? If so, how can we quantify that?
We have been told that NICE is the solution to postcode prescribing. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funds to implement all NICE's recommendations over the coming year at local authority level are included in today's figures?
Finally, may I express my regret at hearing that a review of the formula is still some years away? In Scotland, sparsely populated rural areas are already being recognised as having special needs; in Wales, that is coming. I hope that the situation in England will be remedied a great deal sooner than over the next few years.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We will see what we can do on the formula, but believe me, I and previous Secretaries of State who are present in the Chamber have wrestled with the intricacies of the formula. Trying to get the money to the right areas is like a game of three-dimensional chess. We must make sure that, rather than tinkering, as has been the case in the past, we have a fundamental root and branch review of the formula. That is the right thing to do. It is also the right thing to do in conjunction with the local government review that colleagues elsewhere in Government are undertaking.
On the cost of living increases for nurses, PAMs—professions allied to medicine—midwives and others, I can confirm that the cost of living increases are over and above what the review bodies will recommend. That is the right thing to do, and it is plain common sense that some parts of the country, largely in London and the south-east, have a higher cost of living than elsewhere. If we are to do what we need to do to tackle shortages of nurses, therapists and so on, we must provide extra financial incentives for staff through their pay packets. That is what we will do.
On free nursing care, yes, I can confirm that at present the money is in health authority budgets. I can also confirm that it is our intention, subject to Parliament, to introduce free nursing care part way through the next financial year.
Finally, on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, we must make some provision, of course, for an increase in drugs expenditure. As I have said before in the House, if we can get good, high-quality, cost-effective and clinically effective drugs to more and more patients, I have no problem with drugs expenditure increasing, and increasing above the level of general health authority allocations.

Mr. Robin Corbett: There will be a noisy welcome across Birmingham and the west midlands for the heavy extra investment in the health service there, not least among the too many people waiting far too long for cardiac care and treatment. Will my right hon. Friend require health authorities to publish the extra allocations to hospitals in their area and the purposes for which that money is given, and also require hospital trusts to report on how they have performed with the money given for those specific purposes, so that we can all monitor, publicly and together, what is going on in the health service?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is one of the deals on offer that in exchange for the extra investment that we are putting into the health service, we must see, in as open and accountable a fashion as possible, improved performance. Of course there will be a lot more measuring. We should measure what is going on in the health service.
We cannot have our cake and eat it. We cannot, as some do, decry the lottery in care and different standards in different areas, yet do nothing about it. It is the right thing to do to make sure that we monitor and account, as a local health service, for the services provided to local communities. I can therefore confirm that we will want much more openness and transparency, not only in the way cash is allocated within a local health authority area, but most importantly of all, the progress and the reforms that we get back for the resources that we are investing.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I welcome the extra money targeted towards Nottingham, which will bring us closer in line with our health needs. I also welcome the Government's reversion to the previous Government's policy of targeting waiting times, as opposed to the numbers on waiting lists, which has done so much damage in recent years.
Is the Secretary of State promising not to return to the bust and boom in health expenditure which characterised the first years of Labour? He knows that the present crisis was caused by his Government forcing on his predecessor as Secretary of State a cancellation of the annual spending reviews, in which we had always raised health spending in line with needs and events. If the last year of the previous Parliament was a bad one, all the more shameful, then, that the present Government cancelled the annual spending increases for the first two years of their term.
Now that the right hon. Gentleman has an increase for next year which matches the increase that I was able to announce as Secretary of State in 1990, is it wise to set it

so firmly in stone for three years, expressed in cash terms to make it sound bigger? Is there a let-out clause to allow the matter to be reopened if inflation pressures and the course of events prove that necessary, in order to keep the health service on course and to recover from the neglect of the first three years of Labour?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comments, particularly his welcome for extra money for Nottingham, which, as I remember, is one of the big gainers from the allocations that we have made today.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: A lot more than when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Secretary of State.

Mr. Milburn: Correct. The right hon. and learned Gentleman touched on his record, but I remind him that, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the increase in net NHS expenditure in 1995–96 was 1.6 per cent. in real terms, and in 1996–97, the final year, it fell by 0.1 per cent. So if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not mind, we will have fewer lessons from him.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows fine well that there is a direct relationship between the number of people on the waiting list and the length of time that they wait for treatment. I bet that, when he goes to Sainsbury's or Tesco—or he may even be a Co-op man for all I know—he always joins the shortest queue at the checkout.

Laura Moffatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome news for trusts, particularly in my area. They will heave a great sigh of relief at now being able to recruit in the way that they wish. My right hon. Friend knows that modernisation, not just investment, is the key to our NHS moving forward. With regard to improving treatment for cardiac patients, has my right hon. Friend given any thought to allowing paramedic ambulance crews to give the so-called clot-busting drugs? As my right hon. Friend said, it is so important for those to be given as quickly as possible. Has my right hon. Friend made any movement on that?

Mr. Milburn: Yes, I can confirm that. During the next few months and in the next financial year, we shall start to do precisely that, ensuring that, in future, more and more paramedics are appropriately trained to give those life-saving drugs to people who have had a heart attack. It is far more sensible to do that immediately the ambulance arrives at someone's home rather than having to transport the heart attack victim from home to hospital, with all the delays that can accrue.

Mr. Simon Burns: When the Secretary of State talks about real-term increases in funding, he rightly bases that on the retail prices index. But as the right hon. Gentleman will be more than aware, NHS inflation and wage inflation are significantly higher than the RPI. Has he calculated what impact NHS inflation will have on his spending plans during the next three years and how it will affect NHS spending?

Mr. Milburn: Yes, we have done that. I can confirm that, while the cash rise is, on average, 8.5 per cent., the real-terms rise is about 5.9 per cent. The hon. Gentleman


will be aware that, as when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) held office, it is well in excess of the amount of money made available to the NHS when he, I think, was a Health Minister.

Helen Jones: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, particularly with regard to the performance fund, some of which I hope will come to Warrington hospital in due course. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in his review of funding, the needs of areas such as north Cheshire, which has large pockets of health inequalities among areas of affluence, particularly in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg), are met, so that they can tackle the health inequalities that exist outside big cities?

Mr. Milburn: Yes; I do not know whether it was made clear to my hon. Friend in the letter that she received from me today, but I can confirm that, in the allocation to North Cheshire health authority, there is a health inequalities adjustment of an extra £1.1 million, precisely recognising the real health problems of her area and others.

Sandra Gidley: It would be churlish not to welcome extra money, and I particularly welcome the cost of living allowance for health professionals, but I represent a Hampshire constituency and I did not hear Hampshire mentioned in the list. Will the Secretary of State please confirm the situation with regard to Hampshire?

Mr. Milburn: The following health authorities, which—helpfully—are not ranked in alphabetical order, gain from the cost of living allowance: Southampton and South West Hampshire, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire and North and Mid Hampshire. It is good to make someone happy.

Dr. Ian Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for granting resources for Norfolk, but I especially welcome the fact that the resources are to be spread throughout the country. That is an important political point. I have known my right hon. Friend for many years through our days in the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staff. I never imagined that he would become the man with the team that cracked the postcode lottery. Today's announcement means that he has done that. Thank goodness the right party won the election in 1997; it is a shame that we did not win in 1992. Some of us might have enjoyed our jobs in cancer research in the intervening five years much more than we did.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the money is separate from the money for radiotherapy machines and buildings that has always existed? Today is a heyday in the fight against cancer and for the medical world in general.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and for all his work for cancer research and in the battle against cancer. I can confirm that the extra money will be for revenue purposes. I shall make announcements in due course about extra capital. Without letting too many cats out of the bag, we expect further improvements and

investment in the modernisation of cancer equipment. That is long overdue; it is desperately needed and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, it should have started many years ago.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: As the Secretary of State knows, I am especially glad that cancer is beginning to get the sort of priority that it deserves. However, he knows that some nursing agencies on which the NHS depends have been recruiting staff in sub-Saharan Africa. Does he believe that robbing the poorest countries in the world to improve our health service constitutes proper use of the money that has been put into the NHS?

Mr. Milburn: No, I do not. Sadly, I do not run the nursing agencies that are responsible for such conduct. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows from the NHS plan commitments, we will recruit some staff from overseas, for example, nurses from Spain. We shall also attempt to recruit some doctors from other parts of Europe. However, we do not believe that we should rob developing nations of the medical and clinical staff that they desperately need.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend's remarks, especially about Manchester, gave a clear signal of the Government's commitment. One of the biggest blots on the NHS in recent years has been the relationship between poverty and ill health.
Earlier, my right hon. Friend mentioned "la, la", sitting opposite. There were no kindly Tory Teletubbies in previous Governments; instead, there was indifference to and cynicism about health inequality. Every Manchester Labour Member beat a path to successive Tory Health Ministers and were told that inequality did not matter. Today's announcement means that my constituents can look forward to the same quality of health care as those of Conservative Members. That is a genuine sign of proper commitment to a fair and universal national health service.

Mr. Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with the thrust of his remarks. We all know from our constituencies, regardless of whether we represent a so-called poor area or a so-called rich area, that there is a clear correlation between poverty, deprivation, poor housing, lack of employment opportunities and ill health. Frankly, the position is worse than my hon. Friend suggested. Not only did that lot refuse to recognise inequality: they banned the word in the Department of Health.

Mr. Julian Brazier: At a time when there have been patients, some with serious conditions, on trolleys and in offices in all three acute hospitals in east Kent, and when many of our roads and our rail system have been disrupted by flooding, is the Secretary of State aware of the dismay with which people continue to face the proposed reorganisation in east Kent? It includes closing the accident and emergency unit in the heart of east Kent, stripping the Kent and Canterbury hospital, to whose coronary and cancer units the Secretary of State is committed, of many of its supporting services, and funding the process by a cut in beds in that overstretched hospital.

Mr. Milburn: I am not particularly surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments, although I am somewhat disappointed. He should welcome the 8.44 per cent. increase in funding for the health service in his area, because it will help to deal with some of those difficulties. Just because we are putting record levels of investment into the national health service, it does not mean that the health service at a local level will not change. Medical advances, changing technologies and changes in demography are all driving change in the national health service. It has changed over the past 52 years, and it will continue to change over the next 52. Rather than stand in the face of change, the hon. Gentleman should get on side and support the changes to ensure that his constituents get better care than they have received in the past.

Mr. Eric Illnsley: My right hon. Friend's announcement will be most welcome in the Barnsley health authority area, especially in view of the inequalities in health care in that authority in the past. As my right hon. Friend knows, historically Barnsley is one of the lowest-funded health authorities in the country, yet it has some of the greatest needs in the treatment of cancer, strokes and heart disease. Will my right hon. Friend give me some reassurance that the needs of our health authority will be met by closing the funding gap and bringing us closer to our target funding in future years?

Mr. Milburn: We have increased the funding for Barnsley health authority by 8.7 per cent., which is an increase of just under £15 million. That will help to address some of those very real health problems. As the local constituency MP who is very active on health issues, my hon. Friend will know that some of these problems are pretty intractable and structural, and it will take time to deal with them. That is why it is important that we get an appropriate level of health service expenditure into the local NHS, and that we sustain that funding over a period of years. It is terribly important to do what we have done today, which is not just to make available a one-year allocation, but to give health authorities a sense of where they will be in two or three years' time.

Mr. David Heath: I, too, welcome the extra spending. I want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). I presume that the welcome target that the Secretary of State has announced for administering thrombolytic drugs is within 30 minutes from the point of arrival at accident and emergency units. In my constituency and in much of the west country, it can take twice that long to get from the scene of the event to the accident and emergency unit, partly because of the distances involved and partly because of the overstretched ambulance service and the lack of air cover. Will he consider precisely how drugs and treatment can be administered at the earliest possible point for people who live in rural areas that are not easily reached by ambulance crews?

Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. It is self-evident that it is far more sensible, especially in rural areas, to take the drug to the patient than to expect the patient to travel to the drug. We need to do both. We need to improve the time that patients have to wait in accident and emergency departments to be

given thrombolysis, and we also need to ensure that more and more paramedics are trained so that they can administer the clot-busting agent on the spot.

Ann Keen: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and it will be very welcome to my constituents and to people in west London. So as to bring senior nurses back into the health service, has my right hon. Friend considered the senior clinical nurses who were evicted overnight from sites around the country and who went into higher education, which is what nurse education should be in my opinion? We should find ways of using their clinical expertise and knowledge, and perhaps give them joint roles in the health service. Many of those clinical leaders are now stuck in higher education and do not have the same right to enter hospital sites and hospital trusts.

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is extremely knowledgable about these issues. I agree with her that we must provide the right incentives, the right education and training and the right employment opportunities to ensure that we not only recruit more nurses back into the NHS, but retain them once they are working for the health service. We cannot have more nurses coming back into the service and an excess of nurses leaving it. We are moving in the right direction. We are turning the corner: there are now more nurses working in the NHS than there were just a year or so ago, but there is a lot more work to do.
With regard to nursing careers becoming more academic, we must get the balance right. We must give nurses who will become nurse consultants and operate at a high clinical level appropriate academic training, but we must not lose the fundamental caring nursing skills that are the backbone of the nursing profession.

Mr. Roger Gale: I welcome the 8.4 per cent. increase that has been re-announced for east Kent. By January slightly more, not fewer, beds would have been available in east Kent, but they will not be available because they will be blocked. Nothing that the Secretary of State has said this afternoon will change that.
Broomfield Lodge nursing home in my constituency is one of Kent county council's preferred providers for the elderly and senile, but because it is underfunded by about £100 to £150 per week per client, and because it is competing with NHS agencies for nurses in terms of costs, it is likely to close. If it does, the 18 clients who are there now will join the others who are blocking beds in hospitals, and add to the problems caused by the loss of 200 beds in the private nursing sector until April. There is nowhere for those patients to go this winter. What are the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Social Security going to do about it?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving at least a modicum of welcome to the extra resources provided for his health authority area. As for delayed discharges and the position in the care home sector, it is true that there are problems in some parts of


the country. That is largely a product—especially in the south-east—of rising property prices, and of people getting out of the business because—

Mr. Philip Hammond: Because of the Care Standards Act.

Mr. Milburn: It has absolutely nothing to do with the Care Standards Act 2000, as the hon. Gentleman knows fine well. We have given care home owners seven years in which to introduce the new standards. The idea that they are suddenly walking away from their businesses today is ludicrous.
As I have said, there are problems in some parts of the country. That is precisely why social services departments—I hope this applies to the area represented by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale); if it does not, perhaps he will take up the matter with Conservative-controlled Kent county council—have increased the number of intensive home care packages of support in order to provide people with more care at home this winter than was provided last winter. Moreover, social services expenditure, which rose by an average of 0.1 per cent. under the last Government, has been rising by 3.1 per cent. over the past few years.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Secretary of State is gradually giving real hope to all who use the health service that intractable problems will now be tackled. One such problem, in regard to which this country has performed very badly, is the huge number of hospital-acquired infections. What will the Secretary of State do to tackle that? It is claimed that up to 5,000 deaths a year arise from hospital-acquired infections. That leads to a huge waste of resources because patients are staying in hospital beds for much longer than would otherwise be necessary. The problem has been tackled with great success in the Netherlands—when can we follow its example?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right. Although we are making a lot of money available to the NHS, and although the NHS has a clear reform programme and a good deal of commitment to making changes, real and intractable problems nevertheless exist.
There is no quick-fix solution to the problems of the NHS. The issue of hospital-acquired infection is very serious: as my hon. Friend says, it affects many patients, and it also costs the taxpayer a pretty penny. That is why the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham), recently issued clear guidance to all NHS hospitals saying that they must improve their standards of cleanliness and decontamination.
I can tell my hon. Friend that we intend to publish all the standards reports that we receive from hospitals by April next year, so that the public can see the progress we are beginning to make. It will not be easy, however, and it will take some time.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Will the Secretary of State comment on reports in yesterday's Evening Standard that winter pressures now appear to be

becoming autumn pressures in Greater London? Already people have been exported from Greater London because no intensive care beds are available, and because there are still not enough intensive care nurses. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall have extra nurses this winter, so that we do not experience the same crisis in London that we experienced last year?

Mr. Milburn: To say that the figures that were quoted in yesterday's Evening Standard are evidence of a crisis is fundamentally misleading. The number of intensive care transfers is slightly down compared with the same period last year, and the figures have fallen since September this year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not fall into the same trap as the official Opposition—they are looking for, and are determined to foment, a winter crisis. Indeed, they are determined to declare war on the national health service this winter. I hope that he realises that there are people—and newspapers—in this country, and some Members of Parliament, who are no friend of the NHS.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Tomorrow I will meet primary care staff in my constituency. I am sure that they, like me, welcome the extra cash for the west Kent health area. In tackling some of the inequalities that my right hon. Friend mentioned, especially in respect of mental health and coronary heart disease, does he agree that it is essential for primary care trusts to identify the people at the greatest risk in a community? In his next announcement on capital expenditure, will there be an allocation for investment in information technology? Such preventive measures require primary trusts to have access to good IT in order to carry out that essential work.

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. All parts of the primary care system require improvements in IT infrastructure, which has suffered from under-investment. Parts of the health authority allocations are specifically for improved IT in GP surgeries and hospitals.
My hon. Friend will be aware from the NHS plan that we want primary care to involve GP surgeries and health care centres in establishing at-risk registers to identify those patients who have had, or are liable to have, a heart problem. As he knows, some fairly simple, cost-effective treatments can be made available to such patients. They are far more effective and better than people having a heart attack before going to hospital for a serious operation.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Can the Secretary of State explain why, despite Labour's promises, mortality rates—the number of people dying within 30 days of emergency treatment—in four out of five hospitals surrounding my constituency are no lower than during the last year of the previous Conservative Government? Will he also confirm the National Audit Office figures that showed that nearly one in 10 NHS beds is occupied by a person who acquired his infection or complication while in hospital, as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) suggested? If the right hon. Gentleman could solve that problem, would that not relieve human suffering and release far more resources than he announced today?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful—just about—to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. For the first time, we


have infection control teams in hospitals up and down the country. We established them, not the previous Government. Frankly, is not the idea that hospital-acquired infection suddenly broke out on 1 May 1997 rather laughable?

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and on yesterday's announcement of £22 million for Addenbrooke's hospital, which will help my constituents. Does he agree that the 32 extra beds that that £22 million will achieve will mean shorter waiting times, and that that would be put at risk if a Tory Government were ever re-elected because they prefer tax perks for those with private medical insurance?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right on both counts. We are now in a position to reverse a decline in the number of acute and general beds in hospitals, which has been occurring for many—perhaps 30 or 40—years. As I have told the House before, my view is that we must increase the number of hospital beds and beds in the whole care system if we are to provide the quality of care and the speed of response that patients rightly expect nowadays. She rightly said that all that investment would be put at risk thanks to the cuts guarantee that the Conservative party has, in effect, now published. It would take £9 million from every health authority in the land. Conservatives must explain that to their constituents; I am sure that my hon. Friend will explain it to hers.

Dr. Peter Brand: I should like an assurance from the Secretary of State that all the money in the performance fund will be spent. Are there any moneys outstanding in this year's performance fund allocation? Does he recognise that some health authorities cannot perform because they cannot attract the necessary staff and have to rely on extremely expensive agency locums? That is a tremendous disadvantage to health authorities, such as the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Milburn: The Isle of Wight will do rather well as a consequence of some of the changes that I have made today. The hon. Gentleman lives in hope; I live in hope that he will see the light eventually. The performance fund will be fully spent. It is important to make it clear that the idea is that each and every part of the local health service will get its fair share of the performance fund. However, the poorer performers will inevitably have strings attached—of course they will; that must be right. If they have not come up to scratch, most right hon. and hon. Members would be pretty wary of spewing yet more resources into them without conditions being applied.
There are problems with agency nurses, but the hon. Gentleman knows that, on Friday, the Prime Minister announced our proposals to ensure that the NHS gets to grips better with precisely those problems, so that we improve the quality of care for patients and the value for money for taxpayers.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: How much has been allocated to addressing health inequalities in Liverpool? My constituency has been identified as the second poorest area of the country and the one suffering the worst ill health. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that the money allocated is targeted at the areas of

need already identified in Liverpool by the performance indicators published earlier this year, so that it specifically addresses the issues of too few general practitioners, the shortage of staff to undertake cancer screening and the high levels of heart disease and emergency hospital admissions?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. Liverpool will receive an extra £4.3 million as a health inequality adjustment within its health authority allocation this year, precisely to take account of some of the very real problems that she describes. However, it is not just a matter of getting the money into those areas; we must also ensure that we get the services and the staff into the inner cities. She is aware that because of how we have distributed GPs around the country in the past, we have not always met need in primary care in the way in which we should. That is precisely why we are rolling out a big expansion in the number of personal medical services GPs, and I expect that next year a substantial proportion of those will go into precisely the areas that she describes, where they are most needed.

Mr. Michael Howard: I welcome the emphasis that the Secretary of State places on the treatment of heart disease and on dealing with waiting times. Is he aware that, in east Kent in July, 108 people had been waiting more than three months for heart surgery—the comparable figure for March 1997, about which he was so scathing, was 63—and that 207 people had been waiting more than 13 weeks to see a cardiologist—the comparable figure for March 1997 being 40? Is he not thoroughly ashamed of those figures? What assurances can he give my constituents that things will not get even worse this winter?

Mr. Milburn: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware, for the first time the Government have made available earmarked funding precisely to tackle some of the problems in heart surgery rates that we inherited. The previous Government did not make a penny piece available for earmarked heart surgery; we have done so. During the next few years, there will be 3,000 extra heart operations, a further 3,000 extra heart operations, and, over time, as we expand the number of heart surgeons, waiting times for treatment will come down not just in his area, but throughout the country.

Ms Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by people in Salford. It is real evidence of the Government's commitment, and indeed my right hon. Friend's personal commitment, to tackling health inequality. I find the Opposition's last-minute, deathbed conversion to redistribution singularly unconvincing, but we wait to see the evidence of what they have said.
I know that my right hon. Friend recognises that the causes of inequality are complex and that the NHS acting alone cannot resolve all the problems. Will he ensure that the extra investment is worked on with partners in local government and in the voluntary sector to ensure that we get added value from the extra resources that we put in, and that we monitor closely the outcomes that we achieve? The extra money must make a real difference to our communities.

Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my lion. Friend. As she recalls, a year or so ago I visited parts of her


constituency where there is deprivation and associated pockets of ill health. She is right that the job of tackling health inequalities and improving life chances for people is not just the job of the NHS—it must be done in concert with local government, local organisations and, most important, local communities. That is precisely what we are seeking to do through the local strategic partnerships that the Government are seeking to create.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there may be many instances when it makes sense for the NHS to contract services to the private health sector, not least because that sector has lower unit costs? If he has come to that conclusion and is prepared to do that, may I congratulate him?

Mr. Milburn: I am not sure about the issue of unit costs; that will have to be hammered out on the ground between the local health service and the local private sector provider.
As I have made clear before in the House, I have no problem with the NHS contracting with private sector providers to ensure that NHS patients receive treatment for free and in as timely a way as possible. However, there are two important caveats: we must be assured that we are getting the highest standards of care for patients and the best value for money for taxpayers.

Ms Joan Walley: I thank my right hon. Friend for doing something about all the years of underfunding in the NHS. My constituents will welcome his statement. They will want to see a shift to primary care, and they will want to know that there will be the necessary training for the extra personnel that we need.
The North Stoke primary care trust in north Staffordshire is £4 million away from its target and there are huge health inequalities. Can my right hon. Friend give us some hope that those health inequalities in north Staffordshire are at last being addressed?

Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. We have a fairly blunt instrument at the moment for distributing cash to local parts of the NHS—the local health authorities—but, from the points that she has made, she is aware that, within a health authority, there will be pockets of deprivation alongside pockets of prosperity. That is why we will suggest to health authorities that, for the next financial year, they get the appropriate pace of change in place to ensure that the resources are in place at a very localised level, as we have sought to do in distributing cash from national to health authority level.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Is the Secretary of State aware that last week an orthopaedic surgeon at the general hospital in Banbury told me that he does not expect to carry out any elective surgery until February at the earliest because of a shortage of nurses and beds, because surgical beds are being taken up by medical cases, and because beds are being blocked by people who need to move back into the community, but for whom community care is

not available? We will not reduce either waiting times or waiting lists until surgical beds and surgical services are in some way protected.

Mr. Milburn: It is true that the previous Government closed a lot of those beds, but it is also true that the hon. Gentleman has a good point. There are problems in Oxfordshire precisely because of the cost of living difficulties of which he is all too painfully aware, which sometimes make it difficult to recruit staff. That is precisely why, within Oxfordshire's health authority allocation, we have made extra money specifically available for his area to allow it to recruit the nurses and PAMs that are so important in a clinical team working alongside the doctors.
There is another trick that we must perform. The hon. Gentleman is right that, this winter, the national health service will do what it should sensibly do: prioritise emergency cases. Obviously, the emergencies must come first, but that will mean that we will free up some elective capacity, particularly in the form of surgeons—ear, nose and throat surgeons, for example. Frankly, if we can get those people working in private sector hospitals to provide care for free to NHS patients, it would be making the best use of available staff and capacity. I am sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman will see in his area and what we will see in other parts of the country.

Mr. Derek Twigg: I welcome the statement, particularly the announcement of extra cash and the three-year plan, which will be very important for health authorities to plan properly. My right hon. Friend knows from representations made by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) that the situation in Halton in relation to all types of cancer and coronary disease is the worst in the country. I therefore welcome his announcement that £1.1 million is being earmarked to deal with the special problems in north Cheshire. It is also about time—I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is doing it—to review the NHS funding formula which has discriminated against my constituents, who deserve more resources. I welcome the review, and I hope that it is conducted very quickly.

Mr. Milburn: As I said, extra money is available specifically for tackling the problems in my hon. Friend's own area as part of the fairly large 8.6 per cent. funding increase for the North Cheshire health authority. It is very important that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House understand that it will take time to achieve all the objectives. Although we are dealing with very large numbers—historically, the increases are very large indeed—we are also dealing with some very large problems and a very large inheritance of under-investment and neglect over many decades.

Mr. Michael Fallon: The Secretary of State has to determine the average funding increase for mental health services arising from the allocations that he has announced today. Does he recall that, two years ago, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) and others came to see him about the case for a single-site hospital in west Kent?

Mr. Milburn: I am very aware of the case for a single-site hospital. As the hon. Gentleman knows,


the hospital and the regional office will be able to submit their proposals again in the third wave of the major hospital building programme that I announced yesterday. I expect to make decisions on that early next year, and to be able to make some announcements on it in the spring.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the statement to continue for more than one hour and 10 minutes, and we must move on. I regret that some hon. Members have not been called, but I shall take a note of their names.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, I was approached by a constituent who is a prison officer at the local prison in my constituency, who said that he wanted to come to see me to discuss an employment matter, and I gave him a note of my constituency surgeries last weekend. Subsequently, he telephoned me to say that he had been told by the prison authorities that if he got in touch with me it would be a disciplinary matter.
Could you please confirm, Mr. Speaker, that although it may well be wise for people in an organisation such as the Prison Service to seek to resolve matters through internal employment services, that does not excuse anyone threatening a sanction—a disciplinary employment sanction or any other sanction—against a constituent who wishes to approach his or her Member of Parliament? Would not such a threat be a breach of the privileges of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I tell him, however, that no question of the House's privileges arises. Nevertheless, without commenting on the particular case, I am strongly of the view that constituents should not be prevented by their employer from taking matters of concern, whether private or public, to their Member of Parliament. We are all elected to this place to represent the people, and we cannot do that if individuals are prevented from approaching us with their grievances. I would certainly expect employers in the public sector to understand that.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the announcement by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the Stephen Downing case to the Court of Appeal, I wonder whether you have had any indication from the Home Secretary that he is to come to the House today to make a statement? Stephen Downing has been in jail for 27 years, but his case has now been referred. It really should be possible for the Home Secretary to use his powers to ensure that Stephen Downing is immediately released while his case is pending appeal.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such notification and therefore it is not a matter for the Chair.

Parliamentary Oath (Amendment)

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the parliamentary oath; and for connected purpose.
I proposed a similar Bill in July 1998 and lost by 14 votes. Whether or not this Bill is successful, I shall return to the issue, because I regard the principle contained herein as being very important.
In proposing my previous Bill, I said that
the taking of an oath and the act of its swearing or affirmation is a matter of great moment in the life of a person or of a nation. No democratic institution would demand that its participants take an oath without reason. No person seeking election to perform a public service would take an oath without understanding the significance of such an act.
I also quoted the universal declaration of human rights:
Everyone has the right to take part in the Government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Later, I said:
We recognise that the law must, without discrimination, respect the rights of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organisations, to ensure that the will of the people serves as the authority for government. We also recognise that parliamentary privilege is not for the benefit of Members, but protects the rights of the electorate, who depend on those whom they have elected to uphold their rights and interests in Parliament.
These are the general principles of representative government and parliamentary democracy as we understand it.
The taking of an oath is a serious matter. Those who are believers take it before God; others according to their ethical codes. However, it is also a public matter. We take the oath before this House and, because of television, we take it nowadays before the nation and before the world. The oath is not something to be ridiculed or demeaned; taken with crossed fingers, or under protest, or rushed and said as gibberish, or with added qualifications or mental reservations. It should he sacred; it is important.
In speaking against my Bill on that occasion, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) gave me my case. He said:
If a man or woman seeks to sit in the House, the oath of allegiance is essentially the password to entry.
It is a PIN number. It is an "Open Sesame" to a new and fresh Aladdin's cave full of points of order, private notice questions—hopefully, Mr. Speaker—statutory instruments and all those rich joys of Parliament.
To me, the oath is more important than a gold key, a password or a means to an end. It is a solemn affirmation, or the swearing or accepting the responsibilities of representing people. For the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, it may be a mere ritual. For me, it is more than that. He went on to say:
Once the password has been uttered, it does not prevent an hon. Member from seeking to change the arrangements of our constitution.—[0fficial Report, 29 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 377–81.]
What a charade that is; what hypocrisy. I suggest that we want more than that. Could a republican deny everything he believes in and then, the following day, propose a ten-minute Bill to abolish the monarchy? That is what the right hon. Gentleman said and that is quite wrong.
The present oath of allegiance has no reference whatever to the people who send us here and no reference to our duties and obligations to the majority of people in our constituencies—and indeed to all our constituents whom we represent in this House, whether they voted for us or not. The password, the key to our being here, is the words of the returning officer, not the oath of allegiance that we take.
There is a general spirit of modernisation among Labour Members and throughout the House, not only in terms of the hours that we sit or the powers that we want Select Committees to have but in our general attitude to our relationship with society as a whole. If we are to establish the respect that we are told we are losing in society, we have to be seen to be serious people doing a serious thing—and taking the oath is a very serious thing indeed.
I have not mentioned Northern Ireland, although others will say that that is the secret agenda. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster spoke about the strategic purpose and the tactical purpose of my earlier Bill. I honestly do not know whether the two Sinn Fein Members would take their seats if the Bill were enacted. To me, that is irrelevant. If there were a united Ireland, it would not be a question, but the principle for membership of the House would still be the same.
We should look for inclusivity and ensure that there is no bar to membership of the House for those who want to be elected and are lawfully elected by their constituents. I believe that people can carry out their duties not necessarily by taking or affirming an oath of allegiance but, if they wish, by swearing, in the phraseology suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that they will
to the best of my ability, discharge the responsibilities required of me by virtue of my membership of the House of Commons and faithfully serve those whom I represent here.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) rightly drew to our attention the fact that this is his second bite of the cherry, as he had a go on 29 July 1998, when he said that he spoke "with some trepidation". Obviously, in the intervening time he has been able to overcome that trepidation, and he has entertained us with another case for changing the practices of the House. He is nothing if not persistent. As he also pointed out, he was defeated last time by 151 votes to 137. I am pleased to say that those who opposed him last time came from many different parties. Many Liberal Democrat Members, as well as Ulster Unionists, were against him.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: it is a solemn matter. I suspect that the vast majority in the House take that view. When they queue up at the beginning of the new Session to take the oath of allegiance, they do so with some solemnity. Most of us regard it as the most wonderful privilege to come here on behalf of those who elected us and take part in ordering the destiny of this great nation. The act of signing the register and affirming the oath is one of the privileges that


most of us enjoy. There may be some who dislike it and would ridicule it, but I suspect that they are in a very small minority.
The oath is part of our traditions, going back centuries. It is true that in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was in large measure—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It goes back to the Stuarts.

Mr. Howarth: Yes, and in the 17th and 18th centuries it was to renounce the Stuart claim to the throne. It was also one of the bulwarks against Catholicism, which at that time represented a challenge to the sovereignty of these islands—which of course it does not today. Indeed, this House and the country are privileged to have so many adherents to the Catholic faith among us. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) fights vigorously for the continued independence of these islands, which shows that Catholicism and the defence of sovereignty go hand in hand today—as perhaps they did not in the 17th and 18th centuries.
The oath has been changed since then, but it has stood the test of time since about 1868. For the benefit of the House, I shall rehearse some of it, to remind those hon. Members who have forgotten what it says. It states:
I… swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Most of hon. Members are entirely happy to swear that oath.
However, we are not alone. It is not as though Members of the House of Commons are unique in having to swear an oath of allegiance before taking their seats. Judges, magistrates and members of the armed forces do so as well—and members of the Privy Council swear a much more sophisticated oath than Members of Parliament, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will know. I shall not embarrass the right hon. Gentleman by reading it out, as it might embarrass some other Labour Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on, read it out"] I am being tempted by my hon. Friends, so perhaps I will.
The text of the Privy Council oath, as reported to the House by the Leader of the House on 28 July 1998, is:
You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help you God.

In swearing the oath of allegiance, we, like judges, magistrates and other persons appointed to other positions, acknowledge that the Crown—not the person of the Queen, but the Crown—is the fount of all justice in this country. It is significant that the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have drawn up the same sort of provisions for the swearing of an oath of allegiance as we require in this House.
Therefore, the hon. Member for Hull, North should look at those legislatures before he proposes modernising the oath. Neither of those bodies has seen the need to modernise, but both have accepted the desirability of having the oath. It is right that Members of Parliament should swear an oath of allegiance to our country, as Her Majesty the Queen is the head of state. That is the system of government that the people of this country wish—it is the democratically expressed wish of the people. Therefore, it seems entirely consistent that we should take the oath of allegiance. Recent events in the United States have shown the merit of having the Head of State and the day-to-day government of the country resting in different hands.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of inclusivity. I do not believe that we should extend inclusivity to fifth columnists and traitors. Those who wish to be Members of this House and represent the people of this country should swear an oath of allegiance to the Head of State and have the interests of the country at heart.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman's real agenda is to obtain consent for the admission into this Parliament of those who have been elected to it but have chosen not to take the oath of allegiance and—some of us would argue—have done a great deal to undermine all that this country stands for. It is their decision whether they come here or not—no one is forcing them to stay away. They have simply to swear the oath of allegiance and they can take their seats in the House. They challenged it in the High Court in Northern Ireland and in the European Court of Human Rights, and they lost both cases. They lost in the European Court of Human Rights because it was deemed to be a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, and for this House, and not for anybody else.
I hope that I have made a case for the House to reject the hon. Gentleman's entreaties for the second time around and give him such a decisive view of our decision on the matter that he will spare us a third attempt.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 148.

Division No. 330]
5.1 pm


AYES


Baker, Norman
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Ballard, Jackie
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Banks, Tony
Burgon, Colin


Barnes, Harry
Cable, Dr Vincent


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bermingham, Gerald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Berry, Roger
Caton, Martin


Borrow, David
Cawsey, Ian


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Chaytor, David


Brake, Tom
Clapham, Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)






Clwyd, Ann
McWalter, Tony


Cohen, Harry
McWilliam, John


Coleman, Iain
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Martlew, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Crausby, David
Mitchell, Austin


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Davidson, Ian
Mountford, Kali


Dawson, Hilton
Mudie, George


Dismore, Andrew
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Dobbin, Jim
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Donohoe, Brian H
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Drown, Ms Julia
Oaten, Mark


Fitzpatrick, Jim
O'Hara, Eddie


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Organ, Mrs Diana


Gardiner, Barry
Pickthall, Colin


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Pound, Stephen


Gibson, Dr Ian
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Prosser, Gwyn


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Rendel, David


Grogan, John
Roy, Frank


Harris, Dr Evan
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Home Robertson, John
Sanders, Adrian


Hood, Jimmy
Savidge, Malcolm


Hopkins, Kelvin
Sawford, Phil


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Iddon, Dr Brian
Shaw, Jonathan


Illsley, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Stinchcombe, Paul


Kemp, Fraser
Stoate, Dr Howard


Kilfoyle, Peter
Stunell, Andrew


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Trickett, Jon


Laxton, Bob
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Linton, Martin
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Livsey, Richard
Tyler, Paul


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Watts, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Webb, Steve



White, Brian


Love, Andrew
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


McCabe, Steve
Winnick, David


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Wood, Mike


McFall, John
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary



Mackinlay, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. John McDonnell and


MacShane, Denis
Mr. Paul Flynn.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Brady, Graham


Allan, Richard
Brazier, Julian


Amess, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baldry, Tony
Burnett, John


Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Butterfill, John


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Bercow, John



Boswell, Tim
Cann, Jamie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cash, William





Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Malins, Humfrey


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maples, John


Collins, Tim
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Curry, Rt Hon David
Merron, Gillian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Norman, Archie


Day, Stephen
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Öpik, Lembit


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Page, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paice, James


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Pike, Peter L


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Plaskitt, James


Evans, Nigel
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Randall, John


Fallon, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fearn, Ronnie
Robathan, Andrew


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence


Fox, Dr Liam
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fraser, Christopher
Ruffley, David


Gale, Roger
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Garnier, Edward
St Aubyn, Nick


Gibb, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gill, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gray, James
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Spring, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hague, Rt Hon William
Steen, Anthony


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Harris, Dr Evan
Syms, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hayes, John
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Horam, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hunter, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Trend, Michael


Jenkins, Brian
Tyrie, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter



Waterson, Nigel


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wells, Bowen


Keetch, Paul
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Key, Robert
Whittingdale, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Willis, Phil


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lansley, Andrew
Woolas, Phil


Letwin, Oliver
Yeo, Tim


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Loughton, Tim
Mr. Eric Forth and


Luff, Peter
Mr. Gerald Howarth.

Question accordingly negatived

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 180. If the House agrees the amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 2

AIMS OF THE SERVICE

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 3, after first ("local") insert ("probation")

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 5 to 10, 12, 16 to 24, 26 to 28, 30, 40, 83 to 86, 96, 97, 119, 120, 126 to 129, 131 to 134, 136 and 139 to 151.

Mr. Boateng: The amendments are modest and inoffensive. They change the names of "local boards" to "local probation boards". In so far as it clarifies the functions and purposes of the boards, the change is welcome.

Mr. John Bercow: In my characteristically generous and eager spirit, I congratulate the Minister on what appears to be the latest in a series of U-turns. The right hon. Gentleman has developed a habit of inveighing violently against views that are critical of Government policy. When such views are expressed to him, he indicates that he has no intention whatever of changing his mind; but then he returns to the inner recesses of his ministerial office at Queen Anne's Gate and thereafter trogs back to the House to confirm that he has taken on board the sensible representations made to him and that he intends to alter Government policy accordingly.
The right hon. Gentleman should not, however, be criticised for that; such a sign of flexibility is welcome. He will be aware—as, shortly, will the House—that the issue of the title of local probation boards was aired by my noble Friend Baroness Seccombe during the Bill's Committee stage in the other place on 2 October. That was precisely three weeks before this House returned to business.
My noble Friend was quizzical about the Government's decision to refer to local probation boards simply as "local boards". She has been well known to me since 1985; she is of good Birmingham stock and is a most sensible individual. She found it extraordinary that the Government did not seem to want to designate the boards with a title that accurately described what their purpose and functions were to be. She thought it curious that the word "probation" was not included in the title, and suggested that something should be done about it.
My noble Friend said that
that phrase should be amended to read "probation board". The use of the phrase "local board" is not only confusing and meaningless, but could cause problems when contracting with other boards. In house—
that is, among our own number—
it may be understood, but to those outside, it would be ambiguous.

Mr. Norman Baker: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is keen to celebrate his promotion to the Front Bench, on which I congratulate him, but why is he taking such a long time on amendments that the Government have accepted?

Mr. Bercow: It is important that the House is aware of the purport of the arguments. I thought that Liberal Democrats were in favour of the proper exchange of views. I have already generously and in terms congratulated the Minister—for whose ability, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I have the highest regard—but that does not, in any sense, disqualify me from speaking about the merits of the amendments. Indeed, I have not merely an entitlement but an obligation to say something about this matter—not least because it represents a climbdown. I shall not be so unkind—although others might be—as to suggest that it is a humiliating climbdown, but it is a climbdown none the less. I find it disappointing that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who is a notably independent-minded specimen in the House, should nevertheless choose to gang up with the Government in that way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I am a stickler, but I think that "specimen" is not a very attractive word to use.

Mr. Bercow: I readily withdraw, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My affection for the hon. Member for Lewes is boundless, so I readily concede. I shall not be guilty of that sin again.
My noble Friend Baroness Seccombe concluded her remarks about local boards by saying:
Many local boards exist, such as those of companies, banks and even the gas board.
It is important to emphasise that the concerns that my noble Friend expressed on behalf of the official Opposition in the other House were shared by several noble Lords. I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes is aware that his noble Friend Lord Phillips came to the aid of my noble Friend on that occasion. He said:
To refer simply to "local boards" without adding a qualifying adjective provides a recipe for confusion.
He said—I cannot put it better myself—that the name "local boards" was
totally unmemorable, forgettable and neutral.
With a flourish, he added that some might say that it was
even a little "Kafkaesque". The present name "local board" suggests nothing more and nothing less.
During the debate, Lord Bassam, speaking for the Government, said that the amendment was
unnecessary for a simple reason: calling the boards "local" boards emphasises their close relationship with the communities that they will cover.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1149–51.]

Mr. Tony McWalter: I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to gloat, but is he not overdoing it by concentrating on one word on which we all agree? Would not his time be better spent considering the issues on which there is profound and important disagreement?

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is right to want to get on to discuss important matters. However, I want to emphasise that the Government made the mistake in the other place of focusing exclusively on the importance of the word "local", to the detriment of consideration of the appropriateness of the inclusion in the title of the word "probation".

Mr. McWalter: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman implies that there is no need for further debate on the matter. Conservative Members do not understand why the Government thought it so important to retain the word "local"—a proposition from which we do not dissent—but could not see the argument for the inclusion of the word "probation". After all, it is with probation that the bodies are concerned. That is why we were so insistent. We were told by the Government that each local board would include the word "probation" in its title and the geographical area that it was deputed to cover, but Lord Bassam did not think that it was necessary to include the word "probation" on the face of the Bill.
We argued to the contrary and I think that the Minister now recognises that we were justified. I have already graciously welcomed his about-turn and, at the risk of embarrassing him further, I do so again. However, I emphasise to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) the merit of arguing the points in this House and the other place. When we did that—this is the conclusive rejoinder to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this issue merits no discussion—we were told that the change to the title was not necessary. The change is necessary; it is practicable; it has been accepted; and I applaud that state of affairs.

Jackie Ballard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on, I think, his first outing on the Opposition Front Bench. I know from when he and I first crossed swords in a television studio in 1992—when we both failed to get elected to this place—that criticism only encourages him. Therefore, I shall not comment on his speech.
I do not recall much debate on this issue in Committee in this place, which shows that there are occasions when the revising role of the other House is worth while. No one in this House picked up this point. I very much welcome the flexibility that the Minister has shown and I promise him that, if he continues to be flexible, I shall continue to make short speeches.

Mr. Boateng: I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his well-deserved promotion to his current responsibilities. He characterised himself as being eager, but he also has a tendency to over-egg the pudding. That is the hon. Gentleman, and we would not have him any other way.
I am glad that the House has found the amendments acceptable. I do not think that there is much more to be said

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("() ensuring offenders' awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and the public")

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 4.

Mr. Boateng: The amendments advance the debate that we had in Committee. Hon. Members will recall a discussion of a semantic nature. We have taken into account the debate in the other place. Victims have always been at the heart of the Bill, and it seeks to ensure that the probation service, as a law enforcement agency, is bound to consider them. Victims' interests, needs and concerns are met day in and day out by probation officers as they carry out their important work, especially in the matter of public protection. Having heard the arguments and reflected on them, we are only too happy to accede to the amendments.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Even the Minister of State did not manage to keep a straight face when he made his extraordinary defence of an indefensible position.
Of course we are grateful to the Government for finally accepting the amendment, but it is a little incomprehensible that they should have resisted it right up to the wire and had to undergo a defeat in the other place. They were not at all willing to side with the victims in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
It is difficult to believe the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the interests of victims are at the heart of the Bill because the Government resisted the proposition that the service should aim to ensure that offenders understand the consequences of their crimes and that they are rehabilitated, both of which would work overwhelmingly in the interests of victims. The penal system, of which the probation service is a part, has always recognised that retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation are the aims of punishment, but rehabilitation plays no part at all in the aims of the service as set out in the Bill, for which the Government fought right up until the last ditch in the other place.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that addressing offending behaviour is a key requirement of people who seek parole. How much more important is it that those who remain in the community, moving among potential victims and generally at large and free to do as they please, should understand the effects of their offending on those who have suffered from it? How much more important must it be at that stage to rehabilitate rather than allow the offender to slide down the slippery slope to prison? It is not enough to say that such aims are generally understood.
We should remember that the aim of the Prison Service is clearly stated at every prison gate—to help prisoners to lead useful and law-abiding lives. If the imperative is so great in the Prison Service that it has to be stated clearly at the gate of every prison, why is it so much less a consideration in the probation service that it should not be explicitly stated in the Bill? It is wrong to exclude from the Bill explicit recognition of victims and of redemption. I am glad that, late in the day, the right lion. Gentleman has accepted the need for that recognition, but he has offered no explanation of why the Government fought that to the last ditch in the other place. Why were they so bent on excluding the aims that offenders should understand the consequences of their crimes and should be rehabilitated?
The right hon. Gentleman is still just about managing to keep a straight face. I suggest that he comes to the Dispatch Box and says that the Government are not interested in making those aims primary aims. Rather than pretending that those were the Government's aims all along, he should admit that they lost in the other place and have given the fight up as a bad job.

Jackie Ballard: As I recall, the long debates that we had on this topic hinged on the difference between aims and functions. At one point, we had a rather Alice in Wonderland argument about which was primary—a function or an aim.
I was never convinced that the Minister believed what he was saying about the difference between aims and functions. [Interruption.] I hope that that was not unparliamentary—I was not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of telling lies. I think that he knows what I mean. I was convinced, however, that he believes that one of the functions of the probation service is the rehabilitation of offenders, and that victims also have an important place in the system.
I continue to argue—I am glad that at the end of the day we have won the argument—that it is important to put that up in the top line as an aim of the probation service. I welcome the conversion that has occurred in relation to the amendment.

Mr. Boateng: I have heard what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) said.
The right hon. Lady might have been a little more gracious and generous in her remarks, but perhaps that is asking too much. She will have read the discussions that we had in Committee. She will know that rehabilitation has always been in the forefront of the work of the probation service. Probation officers work in this area day in and day out. She does them no service by saying that they need reminding of the importance of rehabilitation and victims. They do not need reminding; we do not need reminding. We are happy to accept the amendment. I commend it to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 10 agreed to

Clause 5

FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL BOARDS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 3, leave out line 5 and insert
("in respect of its area for the purposes mentioned in section 1 and for ensuring the performance of any other functions conferred by virtue of this Act or any other enactment on the board,")

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13, 95, 99 and 102 to 105.

Mr. Boateng: With the leave of the House, I shall take a little time to explain the background to the measures that we propose, which build on existing arrangements to protect the public.
In introducing these measures relatively late in the day, we acknowledge the important public debate that took place following the tragic murder of Sarah Payne. All of us would want to pay tribute to Sarah's parents. Through this amendment and amendments Nos. 101 and 154, we have an opportunity to create a memorial for Sarah. This is a package of measures that can properly bear the name "Sarah's law".
The amendments build on and strengthen arrangements for risk assessment and management of sexual and violent offenders by putting those arrangements on a statutory footing. They require the relevant agencies to inform the public about their arrangements and they provide for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the exercise of the new statutory duty, including the content of information to the public. They also put on a statutory footing and extend a duty to consult and inform victims, where it is their wish, about the release arrangements for the relevant offender.
We seek to build on the arrangements put in place by police, probation and other services. I pay tribute to the work that they do to protect the public against such offenders, who might be some of the most dangerous in the community.
In proposing the measures today, we seek to act as quickly as possible to improve the range of measures available to the police and other services to deal with serious sexual offences. Earlier in the summer we set up a major review of the Sex Offenders Act 1997; it is in progress and it should be completed at the end of the year. Some of the aspects of the Act under consideration are complex and need proper consideration, but we believe that we should deal now with those measures that can be tightened quickly and effectively without waiting for the full review to be completed.
The harm that sex offenders cause victims is at the heart of the new measures. As further evidence of our intention to extend provision for victims, we are placing a new duty on the local probation board that builds on existing good practice and extends it to a greater number of victims. It will be a requirement that the victims of sex and violent offenders be consulted about whether they want to comment on the terms of the offender's release and, if so, whether they wish to be informed of or propose themselves any conditions that relate specifically to them.
Other measures, such as the proposed sex offender restraining order, will, although new, build on concepts in existing legislation. We ask the House to amend the Bill to include those new measures in memory of Sarah Payne, whose tragic death moved so many of us throughout Britain. It is important that we take this opportunity today to improve the protections available to the public, and we have done so. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I associate the official Opposition with the tributes that the Minister has rightly paid. The Minister will know that the Payne family's home is in a neighbouring constituency to mine and in my county. Everyone in the area and, as the Minister said, throughout Britain, was appalled by the crime, and it is only right that the Government should take the opportunity to make certain changes.
The Minister will appreciate that many later groups of amendments deal with related matters, so it might be more appropriate for me to deal in detail with the Opposition's response when we reach them. We recognise, however, that the Government see this group of amendments as part of a complementary series of amendments to address the issues raised by the Sarah Payne case and other earlier tragedies. The Opposition hope to build on the work done in Committee and in the other place.
In dealing with such serious issues, both Houses of Parliament are often at their best. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will recognise that the matters were addressed seriously by all members of the Committee and by their Lordships.
I do not wish to detain the House on this group of amendments because it would be more appropriate to discuss at length later amendments that deal in detail with sex offenders. There might be points of detail on which we disagree, particularly in the next group of amendments and in some later groups, but we hope that there will be a workable regime that will help to prevent any similar appalling crimes.
We recognise that this is a matter that no Parliament can ever get completely right. Sadly, there are wicked and evil offenders out there. We must do our best to try to create a framework in which the innocent, particularly children, are protected. I hope that the Bill, as amended, will go some way to doing that.
The Minister and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench were right to recognise the way in which the Bill could be used to make some helpful changes. We reserve judgment on whether more will be needed in this difficult area, on which I will say more later.

Jackie Ballard: We, too, welcome the amendments. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, the Government are right to take the opportunity to amend the law. However, they were also right to wait for an appropriate opportunity instead of making the wrong decision by overreacting in a knee-jerk response to a heated newspaper campaign and obvious public anxiety earlier this year.
Some of the most important words in the clause are "risk assessment". Nothing can be risk free. We cannot give anyone a guarantee that there is no risk, but it is

important to assess and manage the risk properly, monitor it and ensure that lessons are learned if anything sadly goes wrong.
It is unfortunate that a long debate between the parties about the amendments now would hit the headlines, but because they have cross-party support and our debate has been brief, the press will not notice what we have done today.

Mr. Boateng: The contributions of the hon. Members for Taunton and for Surrey Heath are characteristic of the calm and appropriately serious approach of the House and of the other place to the matter.
It is vital that difficult and complex decisions about the nature of the information to be disclosed on sex offenders be considered on a case-by-case basis by the police and the probation service. It is equally true that parents and the public have the right to more information. We are providing information about the way in which sex offenders are managed in the community, the safeguards that are in place to protect them and the part that they can play in enforcing those safeguards. That is why we are creating a statutory duty for the police and probation services to establish arrangements for assessing and managing the risks that sex and violent offenders present.
I welcome the fact that, in the contributions that we have heard, the House has expressed its approval of our approach.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 13 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 3, line 24, leave out ("accommodation") and insert ("supervision")

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 15 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 29, 53 and 54.

Mr. Boateng: The Government amendments would create a generic category of approved accommodation, which include those hostels that are currently designated approved bail and probation hostels. That would remove distinctions between categories of hostels and enable all approved hostels to accommodate, when appropriate, offenders who are subject to drug treatment and testing orders, or licensed conditions, or offenders who, while not subject to statutory supervision, require enhanced supervision in residential accommodation to assist their rehabilitation.
The Opposition amendments, would—doubtless inadvertently but nevertheless certainly—wreck the ability of the service to provide accommodation in hostels. They would prevent accommodation of a smaller number of dangerous offenders, who are no longer on licence, but whose accommodation in approved hostels is clearly in the interests of public protection.
Greater flexibility, which the Government amendments would provide, is necessary in accommodating those on DTTOs by enabling them to be housed in any approved accommodation while undergoing treatment directed by the courts. The supportive regime in approved hostels increases the likelihood of such unstable offenders


completing the treatment element of their orders. That increases the effectiveness of sentencing and improves public protection.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and I have debated hostels late at night. I appreciate the seriousness with which she takes their contribution to public protection. They have an excellent record of dealing with difficult and dangerous offenders. We want to build on that success by increasing the flexibility and usage of approved hostels. We thus aim to provide for increased public protection and a reduction in reoffending, especially among those on whom the court has imposed DTTOs or who are on licence.
The amendments to clause 24 are consequential on the creation, in clause 9 as amended, of a generic category of hostel. However, the Opposition amendments would destroy the ability of the service to undertake such work. Amendment No. 14 would remove the word "accommodation". That would call into question the ability of the service to provide accommodation in hostels. That cannot have been their intention, but that is the effect of their amendment.
Amendment No. 15 would restrict the use of hostels to those currently on bail, on licence or serving a community sentence. The vast majority of residents will be in one of those categories, but a small number of dangerous offenders, who have been released from prison but not on licence, are currently accommodated in hostels, and rightly so. The supervision provided in hostels, including the operation of a curfew, is such that the public are much better protected than they would be if offenders were left to their own devices in the community. It is essential that we retain the ability to put dangerous offenders in such accommodation.
I urge the House to accept the Government amendments made in the other place, and to reject amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

Mr. Hawkins: I make no apology for spending a little time on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) have made it clear that on a number of occasions during the consideration of the Bill in the other place the Government suffered what can only be described as humiliating defeats, and this matter was one such occasion. When the other place divided, 180 noble Lords and noble Ladies voted for the Opposition amendment, which was ably moved by my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, and only 126 of their Lordships were prepared to support the Government. That was but one of a series of substantial defeats on the Bill in the other place.
Their Lordships felt so strongly about the Bill because they believed that the Government had not paid sufficient attention to the serious concerns about supervision in hostels. I hear what the Minister says about the unintended consequences of the amendment of my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, but we feel strongly that their Lordships were right to press this matter. The Minister's noble Friend the Lord Bassam of Brighton got very confused—to put it at its best—in his attempt to respond to the serious concerns of my noble Friend. He talked about resolving practical matters in a practical way, and said:
That should be done in a fair-handed way.

I am not sure whether he intended to say "fair-minded" or "even-handed", but it showed how confused he was in response to these serious matters. He has sadly been nicknamed Lord Climbdown.
Just before the vote in the other place, my noble Friend asked:
What in my amendment would legally preclude the most dangerous people from being supervised in the accommodation? The noble Lord has not answered the question. I am pressing this point because the noble Lord's response has been based on that premise; namely, that my amendment would be dangerous … I am not satisfied with the response that I have received from the noble Lord.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 828–30.]
I am afraid that that was all too typical of the reasons why Members in the other place made so many changes to the Bill. As we said repeatedly in Committee—the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) joined us in making this point—this is a bad Bill drafted in much haste with many matters needing amendment.
We pressed amendments in Committee, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald have made clear, in the other place the Government were dragged kicking and screaming into conceding some of the sensible points that we had made, some of which were supported by the Liberal Democrats. The Government have finally accepted the importance of our points.
I remind the Minister that many hon. Members, including some Labour Members, expressed concerns in what was a detailed debate on issues to do with bail and probation hostels. Many hon. Members—some in Committee—raised constituency cases in which serious problems had arisen in relation to bail and probation service hostels. I especially remember powerful points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who spoke from experience of a hostel in his constituency. I have experience of a hostel in my own constituency that caused a number of problems, and similar concerns were raised in another place.
We think that Lady Blatch was right to press the issue of supervision, and we hope that the Government will address the point. We shall not ask the House to divide, because we do not want the Government even to seek to allege that we are doing any damage to the provision of accommodation; but we do think that the issue is serious. We want the Minister finally to concede, when he replies, that the Government recognise—and will place firmly in regulations, even if they are not prepared to include it in the Bill—the need for those who will run bail and probation hostels to be required to ensure that, at every stage, dangerous and potentially dangerous residents are supervised. It should not be simply a matter of accommodating them.
Labour Members who have had practical, sharp-end experience of such hostels—which they mentioned in Committee—know very well that supervision is a vital element in any hostel. All our law-abiding constituents want to be given the comfort of knowing that anyone sent to such a hostel will be supervised morning, noon and night. If the Minister is not prepared to say that the Government will find a way of ensuring that supervision is clearly written into the obligations of those running hostels, the next time an outrage, crime or tragedy is


perpetrated by someone who is resident in a hostel but has not been properly supervised, the Government will have to take the blame.
I do not want to be a Cassandra crying in the wilderness, but these are serious issues. As the Minister said, they were addressed seriously in Committee, and we want to hear that the Government will address them seriously. As I have said, we shall not divide the House, but we hope that the Government will take what we have said, and what I expect the Minister to say shortly, in the spirit in which I have made these serious points.

Mr. Boateng: I did not think the spirit in which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) presented his arguments did justice to the serious and important debate in which we engaged in Committee—to which the hon. Gentleman made a valuable contribution—and the attack on my noble Friend Lord Bassam was utterly unwarranted.

Miss Widdecombe: Oh no it wasn't.

Mr. Boateng: Oh yes it was.
"Even-handed" and "fair-minded" are not terms that spring to mind in characterisation of the hon. Gentleman's contributions, so he really ought to take care before casting aspersions on my noble Friend—who, as the hon. Gentleman will discover if he reads Hansard, valiantly tried to put Lady Blatch right when she was insisting on moving immediately to a vote on an amendment that included the phrase " any time", because it would have prevented the accommodation of dangerous offenders not on licence. All Opposition Members know the importance of ensuring that we can accommodate that small but dangerous group, regardless of whether they are on licence. The hon. Gentleman rightly does not push Lady Blatch's proposal to a vote, because to do so would undermine the purposes of public protection. He knows that, and he ought to have had the generosity of spirit to admit it.
Clause 9 ensures that all who are accommodated in hostels are there for supervision or rehabilitation. Supervision, in relation to dangerous offenders or ex-offenders, lies at the heart of all that the probation service does in such hostels. We need to do more to give more recognition to the important work that hostels do.
I am glad that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division, and urge our amendments on the House.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 15 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 24 agreed to

Clause 7

FUNCTIONS OF INSPECTORATE

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 4, line 30, at end insert
(", provided that no such direction shall merge the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons").

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is the first opportunity I have had to join my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in congratulating the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his appointment.
Let me deal with the drafting—the technical reasons why the amendment should not be accepted—before dealing with the substantive issue. Technically, it is very defective. As the words in brackets suggest, it would lay down in law the impossibility of merging
the functions of the Chief Inspector with those of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.
As drafted, it would not achieve that.
Let me now turn to the substantive issue, on which I hope to reassure the House. The power of direction for which clause 7 provides enables the Secretary of State to give directions to the probation service. It has nothing to do with the Prison Service, and it would therefore have no effect.
I have spent rather more years in opposition than any Opposition Member.—

Mr. Hawkins: Not long enough.

Mr. Straw: Too long—although I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 18 years provides good training.
Anyway, having spent some time in opposition, I do not criticise the Opposition for the fact that their amendment is technically defective. Nevertheless, I hope they will accept that it is.
Let me proceed to the substantive issue: whether it would be appropriate to merge the inspecting functions of the chief inspector of prisons with those of the chief inspector of probation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I return to the question of the drafting?
I understand that the amendment may have technical deficiencies, but I think the Home Secretary's argument was that because clauses 6 and 7 deal with the inspectorate of the probation service, the formulation allowing the option of a merger would not work. That is at best arguable, and, as the Government have not—I think—offered any drafting alternative, I hope the right hon. Gentleman does not consider his technical objections to be related to the substance even of the drafting. There may be a technical problem, but according to my reading, it is not a substantive technical problem—although there is a debate about that.

6 pm

Mr. Straw: I shall come to the substantive issue, which is the important part of this point. I hope to provide reassurance to the House, not least by reference to a written answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) which I gave earlier today. The Lords amendment, which relates only to the functions


of local probation boards, would not achieve the desired effect. The Secretary of State would not be prohibited from using the existing statutory provisions—the Prison Act 1952, as amended. They relate to the inspector of probation and therefore allow a single person to combine the functions of both posts.
I come to the substance of the matter. On 9 June in a written answer, I told the House that I was delighted that Her Majesty had consented to extend the appointment of the chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, until 2001. I added that Sir David has
made a great contribution to our shared goal of ensuring that prisoners are held securely in safe, decent and healthy establishments. I am pleased that he will continue in his role beyond the expiry date of his original appointment.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation, Sir Graham Smith, also retires close to the end of July 2001.
I added that aligning the dates when both inspectors are to retire, and hence when both posts would become vacant, would give
the Government flexibility in considering how best to ensure that the arrangements for inspection of prisons and the probation service best support closer working between the services as well-ensuring that the individual services continue to be inspected rigorously and independently as they have been. I shall be making a further statement to Parliament on this in due course.—[Official Report, 9 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 392–93W].
On 27 July, I announced to the House that I would publish a consultation paper setting out a choice of options for drawing the work of the two inspectorates together. That document, which is entitled "Inspecting the Work of the Prison and Probation Services: Options for the Future", was published by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in early August and placed in the Library. It sets out the current arrangements and four options: maintaining current arrangements, establishing terms of reference for the inspection of joint working, sharing inspectors between the two inspectorates, and a joint chief inspector for prisons and probation.
The consultation period ended on 31 October. We told the consultees that their responses would be made public and placed in the Library, unless they objected, and I am making arrangements for that. However, it may help if I summarise those responses, as I have in the written answer that I gave earlier today, and say what decisions have been taken. A majority of consultees favoured some change, including the establishment of terms of reference for the inspection of joint working between the criminal justice agencies and the sharing of inspectors between the inspectorates. By contrast, only small minorities were in favour of either the status quo or the appointment of a single joint chief inspector for prisons and probation.
During the consultation exercise, a helpful scheme was suggested by Her Majesty's chief inspectors of constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, the magistrates courts and the probation and prison services to inspect practice across their boundaries systematically. That scheme, which I hope commends itself to the House, has much to recommend it and the consultation exercise also suggests that it will command broad support. It is therefore the option that I propose to pursue, along with the arrangements canvassed in the consultation exercise for bringing the work of the inspectorates much closer together.
As I made clear in my June answer, we shall have an opportunity to establish new arrangements when both inspectors retire next July. For completeness, it may help

if I refer to the concluding paragraph of my written answer. Sir David and Sir Graham have plainly made significant contributions to raising standards in the prison and probation services. I am grateful to them for their work, and I am sure that that is reflected by the House as a whole. In view of the retirements in July next year, I shall advertise both chief inspector posts in the new year. My answer does not refer to the terms of reference of the appointments, but plainly they will take account of the new arrangements for joint inspections of the kind proposed by the five inspectorates to which I referred.
In view of my substantive remarks, I understand some of the anxieties raised in the other place about a single joint inspectorate, and it was right to consult both Houses of Parliament as well as those outside who are interested in the future of the inspectorates. We have run a genuine consultation exercise and have reached conclusions based on how best to take the services forward. I hope that they will command wide support and that the House will accept both the spirit in which I have moved the motion to disagree and its consequence

Miss Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for the tone in which he discussed this important Lords amendment. I see considerable merit in the proposal for a joint inspectorate. Indeed, in the longer term, I see merit in joining the two services. Both serve the aims of criminal justice, but, regrettably, can often pull against each other because, rather than running as a seamless whole, they work as distinct bodies. Furthermore, both provide services that would be better dealt with as part of a seamless whole. For example, our prisons run offending behaviour courses that seek to address drug, alcohol and gambling addictions and temper management. However, the Prison Service often operates in isolation on those courses and people who leave prison have no means of support to implement the strategies that they have been taught. If the services acted more seamlessly, much more aftercare could be provided.
I genuinely see merit in the Home Secretary's proposals and would not want him to think that I lightly dismiss them and his reasons for not accepting the amendment. I can travel quite a long way with him, but I am sure that he accepts that there has been understandable unease in another place and that the consultation suggests that such unease is even more widespread. Therefore, further reassurances are necessary if he is to convince another place that the safeguard that it proposes should not be implemented. For example, the chief inspectors say that only about 25 per cent. of the work is joint and, therefore, the overwhelming majority of that to be inspected would not fall in such a category.
Some of the work carried out between the two services is very different. For example, the Prison Service has a major duty to prevent escapes and security is an important aspect of the inspector's work, as is the provision of a humane regime. Slopping out, time out of cell, visiting facilities, bullying and purposeful regimes are not mirrored in the work of the probation service. Therefore, it is arguable that they deserve separate inspection.
However, there was an underlying suspicion in another place that any merger could simply be a cost-cutting measure designed to save the Chancellor money, rather than to promote excellence in inspection. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friends in another place the Home Secretary's comments about the


deficiency of the safeguard that they have inserted, but they were seeking to ensure that such a measure could not happen by stealth and that if the right hon. Gentleman—or, indeed, any of his successors—decided to go ahead with such a merger in future, he or his successor would have to return to Parliament for approval and, therefore, would be subject to the full rigours of scrutiny in both Houses. That being no bad thing, and given the Government' s regrettable tendency sometimes to ignore the House, I find that, on balance, I must disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's disagreement, although I do not want to imply that I would never support—or, indeed, propose—such a merger. I commend the protection of parliamentary scrutiny to the House and, therefore, I agree with their Lordships in the said amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I sense a conviction about the conclusion that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) had a little difficulty arriving at.
I thank the Home Secretary for the timetable, by which we have received the written answer in advance of the debate. That is obviously sensible and helpful.
When I started my job for my party, I was entirely neutral about such matters; I had no pre-conceived view about whether there should be one inspectorate or two. Therefore, I undertook the same exercise as the Government have properly done—namely, I looked for myself, listened to people and sought to form a view according to the information that I was given. In that context, I own up to the fact that I now know much more about the prison inspectorate than about the probation inspectorate, both of which are highly respected. Indeed, both chief inspectors are well regarded, and the House will want to pay tribute to both, as the Government have done.
I say that because I am one of the few Members of Parliament who have had the privilege of spending two days with the inspectorate on a recent inspection of Armley prison, Leeds. That inspection was extremely well done and highly regarded by the prison staff, the management and the inmates. I thank those who facilitated my presence: the inspectorate team and their advisers; the prison management; the new governor of Armley, who was very welcoming, as were her staff; and the prisoners, who, at their instigation, allowed me to sit in, for example, on a sex offender treatment session—obviously, entirely respecting confidentiality—so that I could see how such things proceed. From that and the other prison visits that I have taken part in since starting my job, I have no doubt that the regime and methods are extremely effective for routine and ad hoc inspections.
I share the prisons Minister's view on a controversial issue. For example, as a result of the ad hoc inspections at Brixton—a prison which he and I know relatively well from our present and previous roles—he was right to conclude that the regime could not continue without a threat of severe change. That inspection was largely prompted by complaints, which led to the Minister's visit and decision, so the process appears to work, and I pay tribute to the system.
The Home Secretary was absolutely fair in saying that it is logical to extend the appointments of the occupants of both posts so that they end at the same time, providing

the flexibility to consider whether there should be a combined post. I do not dissent from that sensible proposal. There is now a process, to which the Home Secretary has alluded, that will allow both posts to be considered complementarily.
I thank the Home Secretary for undertaking the consultation process. We should thank him for his response to that process; it shows that he listened. He and I occasionally have our run-ins—we even had a mini run-in yesterday—but I hope that I have never said that he does not listen and deal with the arguments. He and his colleagues are always fair in that respect. The consultation has been well carried out in this case. On balance, a persuasive case was put to the Home Secretary. Clearly, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was persuaded by it.
6.15 pm
I shall cite some examples—first, the experience of people of great competence and experience across all parties who argued for the separation of the inspectorate. In the other place, Lord Windlesham and Lord Hurd, a former Home Secretary, were clear about their views. Among my colleagues, Lord Dholakia, who has huge experience of the Prison Service and of rehabilitation, was clear about his view. There is much weight of experience to suggest that the inspectorates should be kept separate.
I give considerable weight to someone who has been prayed in aid—namely, the Bishop of Lincoln, who is the bishop to the prisons. I have known him since he was my college chaplain at university and greatly respect him for his common sense and straightforwardness. He concluded that the inspectorates should remain separate. A host of the great and the good, and the competent, has come to the same view.
I shall not repeat the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, but there are clearly issues that are expressly to do with custody. The prison regime suggests that much work needs to be done. There is no doubt that the prisons inspectorate has a huge amount of work to do. The Prison Service needs a lot of work and improvement. No one in any of the parties would doubt that the service needs external assessment to keep people up to the mark. Sir Stephen Tumim and Sir David Ramsbotham have been very good at independently criticising the Prison Service and constructive about how to proceed. However, that exercise is wholly different from inspecting what only sometimes overlaps with the work done by the probation service.
The probation service has much more natural liaison with many other agencies, such as the health service, housing and social services, the youth service, the education service and the voluntary sector dealing with drugs and alcohol rehabilitation and so on. All that is different in style and character from dealing with the in-house management of the Prison Service. Therefore, I reached the same view as that which most peers, the Home Secretary and—for the time being, at least—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald have reached: the inspectorates should be kept separate.
The amendment, whether or not it is perfectly drafted, would prevent the policy being changed without Parliament taking that decision. The strength of Parliament's view has been—and the clarity of the conclusion reinforced that view—that the amendment is necessary. Clearly, concern


has been expressed in both Houses. The Home Secretary's preferred option clearly has much to commend it, and I accept that it came from the consultation process. It appears that the proposal should be acceptable to the inspector of constabulary, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates courts, the probation service and the prisons. Of course, some of their work needs to be done together.
One of the lessons that I learned at Armley the other day was that the procedure for moving people from prison to the outside world still does not work well. That is not a matter of political dispute. I shall not pretend to know many cases, but Armley prison does all sorts of things. It is one of the biggest prisons in the country and acts as a local prison, so prisoners go there on remand and then serve a short period after their conviction. Sometimes the periods are very short—six weeks, or three or six months. I think that the inspection, which was carried out only a couple of months ago, showed that no one who had been a remand prisoner and then served a short period of imprisonment before their release received any pre-release preparation whatever. Some of those people will have broken their drug or alcohol habits inside; others will have had anger problems and been on a course, or have had a history of sex offending, but there was no preparation for their release because they were short-sentence prisoners. As in the films, they walked through the door into the world with their bags in their hands, but without any preparation. That system will not stop reoffending.
Just as, in the health service debate, the link between health and social services is so important, we need to make that link. That means that there needs to be collaboration, but prison and probation, inside and outside, custody and relative freedom are different things. I am glad that the Home Secretary and the Government have said that there will be two separate inspectorates. Our amendment—which, with the right hon. Lady, we will press to the vote—will, I hope, flag up the fact that we want that decision to be changed only by Parliament, not by the Executive without parliamentary authority.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for the way in which they have made their points. I am glad that the decisions on the future of the inspectorate, which I have announced today by way of written answer, appear to have wide support in the House.
I do not disagree with much of what the right hon. Lady said in her opening remarks—certainly her point about the way in which the Prison Service and the probation service pull against each other. We need to get them to operate more as a seamless whole.
I advance an argument not for having a joint inspector, but for recognition of the need for the two services to work much more closely together. Some functions of the probation service are very different from the functions of the Prison Service. There is a substantial difference between the physical incarceration of a category A long-term prisoner and the preparation of a pre-sentence report on a woman who will not face custody, but has severe problems of mental illness—but there is an increasing overlap in the middle. There is an overlap partly because of the need to ensure better connection between that part of the sentence which is served in custody and that part which is served in the community, for all the reasons that the right hon. Lady and the

hon. Gentleman have mentioned. We need to ensure, say, on drug treatment that there is proper connection. What was once a clear dividing line between punishment in custody and punishment in the community is now much fuzzier at the edges.
For quite a long time, under successive Governments, the Prison Service has allowed people who are in its custody out on temporary release or on licence. It has allowed them, for example, to be in custody, but within open conditions, on trust. The probation service increasingly has a role of enforcement, which in some cases can literally involve the person being confined to a particular area: for example, under home detention curfew or under enforcement provisions of various orders. Therefore, as I say, at the extremes there are differences. In the middle, there is increasing overlap.
Nothing has been done by stealth. I find that part of the argument extraordinary—[Interruption.] It has been suggested that we had better accept the proposal to stop things happening by stealth, just in case. I understand, but nothing has been done by stealth.
I understood the unease that was expressed in the other place. I think that we have dealt with that. I understand the reasons why both Opposition parties want to put down a marker on the issue, but, even if the amendment were passed, it would have no effect. The arrangements that I am putting in place would, I imagine, last in any event for some years. Apart from anything else, no one would wish to be appointed to those important posts without some clarity and certainty about that, but I do not imagine for a second that a future Secretary of State would ever seek to make changes without coming to the House and getting its approval one way or another.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 166.

Division No. 331]
6.24 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Alexander, Douglas



Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Browne, Desmond


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Buck, Ms Karen


Ashton, Joe
Burden, Richard


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burgon, Colin


Atkins, Charlotte
Butler, Mrs Christine


Banks, Tony
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cann, Jamie


Begg, Miss Anne
Caplin, Ivor


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Casale, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F
Caton, Martin


Benton, Joe
Cawsey, Ian


Bermingham, Gerald
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Berry, Roger
Chaytor, David


Betts, Clive
Clapham, Michael


Blackman, Liz
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Borrow, David
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Clelland, David






Clwyd, Ann
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hill, Keith


Cohen, Harry
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coleman, Iain
Home Robertson, John


Colman, Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hope, Phil


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cooper, Yvette
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cranston, Ross
Humble, Mrs Joan


Crausby, David
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hutton, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Illsley, Eric



Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jamieson, David


Darvill, Keith
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davidson, Ian
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Drew, David
Kemp, Fraser


Drown, Ms Julia
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Edwards, Huw
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Efford, Clive
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kingham, Ms Tess


Ennis, Jeff
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lammy, David


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Flint, Caroline
Laxton, Bob


Flynn, Paul
Lepper, David


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Linton, Martin


Foulkes, George
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gapes, Mike
Lock, David


Gardiner, Barry
Love, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Gerrard, Neil
McCabe, Steve


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godsiff, Roger
Macdonald, Calum


Goggins, Paul
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grocott, Bruce
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grogan, John
McNamara, Kevin


Hain, Peter
McNulty, Tony


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWalter, Tony


Hanson, David
McWilliam, John


Healey, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)





Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Shipley, Ms Debra


Martlew, Eric
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Singh, Marsha


Merron, Gillian
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mitchell, Austin



Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Southworth, Ms Helen



Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mudie, George
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mullin, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stringer, Graham


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Norris, Dan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



Olner, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Neill, Martin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Organ, Mrs Diana
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Timms, Stephen


Pearson, Ian
Tipping, Paddy


Pendry, Tom
Todd, Mark


Perham, Ms Linda
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Trickett, Jon


Pike, Peter L
Truswell, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tynan, Bill


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Vaz, Keith


Prosser, Gwyn
Walley, Ms Joan


Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N


Quinn, Lawrie
Watts, David


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
White, Brian


Rammell, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wicks, Malcolm


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara



Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wilson, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Roy, Frank
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruane, Chris
Wood, Mike


Ruddock, Joan
Woodward, Shaun


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Woolas, Phil


Ryan, Ms Joan
Worthington, Tony


Salter, Martin
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Savidge, Malcolm
Wyatt, Derek


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Jonathan
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Graham Allen.






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Harris, Dr Evan


Allan, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Amess, David
Hawkins, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hayes, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Horam, John


Baker, Norman
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Baldry, Tony
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Ballard, Jackie
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Beggs, Roy
Hunter, Andrew


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Jenkin, Bernard


Bercow, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Blunt, Crispin
Keetch, Paul


Body, Sir Richard
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Boswell, Tim



Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brady, Graham
Kirkwood, Archy


Brake, Tom
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brand, Dr Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brazier, Julian
Lansley, Andrew


Breed, Colin
Letwin, Oliver


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Livsey, Richard


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Burns, Simon
Llwyd, Elfyn


Burstow, Paul
Loughton, Tim


Butterfill, John
Luff, Peter


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cash, William
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chidgey, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Clappison, James
Maples, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Moore, Michael


Collins, Tim
Moss, Malcolm


Cotter, Brian
Nicholls, Patrick


Cran, James
Norman, Archie


Curry, Rt Hon David
Oaten, Mark


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Öpik, Lembit


Day, Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paice, James


Duncan Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Faber, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Rendel, David


Fallon, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Fearn, Ronnie
Robertson, Laurence


Flight, Howard
Ruffley, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Foster, Don (Bath)
St Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr Liam
Sanders, Adrian


Fraser, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gibb, Nick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gill, Christopher
Spring, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Steen, Anthony


Green, Damian
Stunell, Andrew


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)





Taylor, Sir Teddy
Whittingdale, John


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Willis, Phil


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tyler, Paul
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tyrie, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Webb, Steve
Mr. James Gray and


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Mr. John Randall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 30 agreed to.

Clause 11

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SERVICE

Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 6, line 8, leave out ("13(1)") and insert ("13(2)")

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 38, 55 and 56.

Jane Kennedy: The assurances that I sought to give in Committee did not allay the fears of the officers doing the work. However, the issue was debated fully in another place, and the amendments—especially those on clause 15—address the concerns expressed. I shall not, therefore, detain the House by elaborating further. The points raised previously were clear, and the concerns were expressed in measured and thoughtful terms. Anyone reading Hansard will be impressed by the detail involved and by the conclusions reached.

Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry to say that I want to spend some time examining this matter. A lot was said in another place, not least by my noble Friend Baroness Hanham, who raised the concerns—to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred—that we had expressed in Committee.
There continue to be many concerns, as the Parliamentary Secretary has fairly conceded, among those at the sharp end of the new service as to what effects the Government's proposed changes will have on them and on the way in which they conduct their business. I am relieved that the Government have at last recognised that not only do the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have these concerns, but that they are widely shared by those who have to carry out the difficult work involved with family welfare connected to the courts.
Since the Committee, I have had personal discussions with several people working in the guardian ad litem service. At a successful and pioneering magistrates court open day in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I was approached by people from the court welfare service and the guardian ad litem service. They told me that they were concerned that they would be the subject of ridicule because of the Government's choice of the new name, CAFCASS.
I had not put that thought into their minds. I do not suppose that they were even aware that we had raised that issue both on Second Reading and in Committee. However, that was proof positive, if proof were needed, that the official Opposition's concerns that the new service would be ridiculed as "carcass" had filtered through to those at the sharp end. Nothing to do with the courts should ever be the subject of ridicule, but this was confirmation that those who are doing the job share our concerns. The Parliamentary Secretary finally recognises that there are concerns, and we welcome that as a small concession.
In another place, Baroness Hanham came across another possible interpretation of the rather inelegant and ugly acronym that the Government have chosen. She said on 31 October:
It is also horribly easy to slip from saying "CAFCASS" into saying "Kafkaesque", a connotation which would be unfortunate in the extreme.
It is extraordinary that the same point that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made was raised in another place in relation to another aspect of the Bill. It may become known as the most Kafkaesque Bill that even this Government have ever introduced.
6.45 pm
Baroness Hanham also said:
I am told that magistrates and those working in the new service believe that, far from enhancing its stature, the acronym will bring it and them into disrepute. The full title of the new service is also cumbersome, even if it is not abbreviated.
She is absolutely right. She pointed out:
Children and family court advisory and support service" is a great mouthful. It is no more descriptive of what is involved than the much simpler "family court child welfare service"—
the alternative which we proposed in another place—
which is well understood and respected. At least the letters FCCWS cannot be shortened into anything other. There is much in a name—pride, identification, professionalism.
[Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) to be twittering from a sedentary position, but she should recognise that these are serious points, and were regarded as such by her noble Friend Lord Bach. I know from having conducted cases against him at the Bar that he always takes such issues seriously. Lord Bach said that if a name similar to that of one of the three services that the Government were proposing to amalgamate into the new service were chosen, it would send a negative message to the other services. That is nonsense and a minor point compared with the dangers of ridicule.
We find it surprising that Lord Bach said:
It may be that the noble Lords will feel that to have "welfare" in the title is a mistake.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 849.]
The services are all, by their very nature, welfare services. In family court cases, the welfare of the children is the first and paramount consideration. All Labour Members who have ever dealt with family law cases will know that that is a term of great respect and a hallowed phrase. It is hallowed by precedent and handed down from leading

cases, so that everyone who has ever practised family law in the past 20 or 30 years knows that that phrase is the starting point. That is why we feel so strongly about the matter.
We are still very concerned. Baroness Hanham and others who spoke in the debate were right to discuss this matter and several of our concerns were taken further. At this late stage, the Government have started to move in our direction and made concessions, even though they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so. We hope that by accepting the Lords amendments or, at least, by accepting the spirit of the argument, the Government will think about promoting other more sensible names for the new service. I hope also that the points raised by the Earl of Listowel in the debate will be taken into account.
It is important to recognise that, whichever party we represent, we are all concerned to ensure that the welfare service supports the courts and works for children and families. That is crucial, and if the Bill promotes that, it will be helpful. However, there is a risk that if these services—and the hard-working, dedicated people working in them—are brought into ridicule and disrepute, it will do harm. That has been our concern at every stage, as I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will have the grace to recognise.

Jane Kennedy: With all due respect, and without wanting to denigrate the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman holds his views, which he has expressed at every opportunity as we have debated the Bill, I believe that the 1,800 staff who will come together in April from the three different services to form the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service deserve better than to have their important new role reduced to an argument about the name of the service.
As my noble Friend Lord Bach said, the name Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service describes exactly the role of the new service. It will represent the interests of children in family court proceedings. In bringing together the three strands of the service, we expect CAFCASS to reduce delay and institute a more child-focused service that the courts can rely on when they consider the serious and sensitive issues that these officers deal with in supporting the work of the courts in arriving at their conclusions. The courts' decisions affect children and families at some of the most critical points of their lives. It is important to recognise the contribution that these staff already make and the contribution that we expect them to make as they come together to form the new service.
I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I must resist his entreaties to reconsider the title. If, in the future, someone suggests a name that is snappy and cannot be reduced to ridicule in any way, I may be persuaded to consider it, but as matters stand, the name has been widely accepted by those working in the three services and will remain. I have not heard any concerns from those family court practitioners whom I have met.
I hope that the House will join me in welcoming the move made in the other place to recognise the concerns surrounding the definition in clause 15 and to support us in establishing a service that will be widely welcomed in the family courts.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 32 to 38 agreed to.

Clause 18

DEFINITIONS

Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 8, line 28, leave out ("(other than a chief probation officer)")

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 44 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) and (b), Lords amendments Nos. 45 and 46 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 50 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill, Lords amendments Nos. 51 and 121 to 124 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, Lords amendment No. 130 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill.

7 pm

Mr. Straw: This raft of amendments raises an important issue about the management of the service. It has been a matter of disagreement in the other place, although I think that it was less so here when it was first discussed. It is important to put on record what has been agreed by all parties, which is that we should move from the current position of having 54 local probation services, with the consequent difficulties in national co-ordination and management, to a national service—the National Probation Service is a clear and unambiguous title—organised nationally but delivered locally through 42 different probation areas that are coterminous with the police force areas. In the past three and a half years, we have moved to ensure that each of the criminal justice agencies works within the police force area or, in the case of the Prison Service, within the Government region containing a whole number of those police force areas.

Mr. Simon Hughes: A Welsh colleague has asked me to ask whether the current arrangements will move from having separate services in Dyfed and Powys to having one service for the area of the Dyfed Powys police force. As the Prison Service has both geographical regions and special groupings of prisons, will the Home Secretary say something about how it will not fit tightly into the new structure with an entirely regional probation service?

Mr. Straw: The number of probation services is moving from 54 to one, organised under the separate police force areas. In Wales, there are currently four police force areas: North Wales, Dyfed Powys, South Wales and Gwent. The probation services would be coterminous with those.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the organisation of the Prison Service into regions. There was an interesting exhibition about that at the Prison Service conference two years ago. I was sceptical about whether it could organise itself into regions in line with the Government regions, but it has done so. Thanks to the work of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and his departmental colleagues, there has been considerable progress—against what had previously thought to be wholly immutable boundaries—

towards reorganising the Crown court circuits from historic boundaries that had more to do with Edward I and the Welsh marches than with anything of contemporary significance to ones that accord with the standard English regions.
Some may think this a prosaic issue, but it is of great importance to those at local level, because in any one area there is only one chief officer of police, one probation officer, one chief Crown prosecutor and so on.

Mr. Hawkins: The Home Secretary seemed very dismissive of the historical origins of some of the circuits regarded as traditional by members of the Bar. Before treating the matter with such levity, he should recognise that what he is proposing to do has been referred to me as a cause of great anger among those at the sharp end of the profession. I hope that he has received similar representations, especially from the Midland and Oxford circuit, because I understand it to be a matter that has caused great anger, and not one to be dismissed with levity, saying that the boundaries date back to Edward I and are unworkable.

Mr. Straw: With respect, there is a difference between treating an issue with levity and having a sense of humour. I hope that the House understood that I was using some humour, but in a spirit of affection towards those circuits and without levity. Just because something is of great antiquity, it does not follow that we should not change it. The whole process of Parliament is about change.
The matter is one for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, and not for me. However, as the hon. Gentleman asked whether I had received any representations on it, the answer is no, and that is quite interesting, as I make myself available to members of my old profession as much as I can and still try to be active as a member of my own Inn.

Mr. Bercow: I am sure that the Home Secretary spoke only loosely when he said that the business of Parliament is about change. Will he confirm that we are not engaged in a process of continuous, Maoist revolution? Will he further confirm his awareness of and support for Lord Falkland's valuable dictum? It states:
When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.

Mr. Straw: Of course I subscribe to that entirely prosaic observation, but the history of the House is one of change. It is important that changes imposed by the laws passed by the two Houses of Parliament be considered carefully rather than capriciously, not least because each of us faces death. We live in a changing world, where every day is different—and every day is different in this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take my first opportunity to welcome you to the Chair? I am glad to be tempted down that philosophical excursion, but I shall return to the point for fear of your calling me to order.
One of the Bill's primary purposes is to create a National Probation Service for England and Wales. All parties agree with that aim. The National Probation Service will enable us to ensure much greater consistency and to improve performance in protecting the public and reducing reoffending.
It is important that any such organisation should be able to appoint its senior executives centrally. Chief probation officers hold the key to the service's performance, and it is crucial that the right people be appointed in the right areas. It is accepted implicitly—there is no argument about it—that the current system of local appointment has failed. There are many excellent chief officers, but some are less good.
It has also been very unsatisfactory that the performance of the less good officers has been mirrored by that of the less good area boards, with considerable adverse consequences for the probation service as a whole. The previous Administration sought to wrestle with that problem by the establishment of national standards over a period of years. The Government have continued to take the matter forward over the past three and half years.
However, the performance of probation services with regard to breach varies over a most extraordinary range. The 1999 survey by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation shows that good services achieve in the high 80 per cent. range when it comes to enforcement of breaches, but I regret to say that, in Essex, only 8 per cent. of cases in which orders are breached three times are subject to any enforcement. No one can look at such evidence without being very concerned about the performance of the individual services and about the overall system that allowed such extraordinary variations in performance to happen.
As the House would expect, I have read the debate held in the other place on 31 October. I respect those who hold a view different from mine, but we have already made the step change involved in moving from a series of local services to a National Probation Service. The NPS is different, in kind and function, from those services that are, wholly or mainly, administered and run at a local level such as local authorities or the police service.
We are dealing with the enforcement of orders of the court. In Britain, our court provision is national. Of course, it is administered locally to a degree, but judges and justices of the peace are appointed centrally. One of the important elements in any fair system of criminal justice is that, within the same jurisdiction, there should be consistency between one court and another.
We have two agencies to enforce the orders of the court—the Prison Service, and the probation service. The Prison Service is a national body, run by a director general answerable to me. In turn, I am responsible and answerable for that service to the House. Governors of local prisons are appointed by the director general, and they have arrangements and relationships with local people, not least with those who give up so much of their time and effort to serve on the boards of visitors. However, the Prison Service could not deliver what we hope is a more consistent and effective service if it were not run nationally.
The other agency that must deliver consistency of enforcement under a national court system is the probation service. As I have indicated, one of its major problems has been a lack of consistency. When we weigh up the needs for consistency and for a high degree of local responsiveness, the balance of factors across the spectrum for the probation service is the same as that for the Prison

Service. That balance may not necessarily be that required for other services, but I contend that the need for consistency calls for the establishment and enforcement of national standards. I am very clear about that.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) does not think me patronising, but I thought that her experience as Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation, and her subsequent experience, allowed her to speak with great wisdom in previous debates about the way in which the prison and probation services can sometimes pull against each other. She has said that the services ought to operate as a seamless whole.
That is true, and very important. In my judgment, however, it would be more difficult to achieve that objective if we set up a management structure for the probation service that had those tensions built into it. The Prison Service operates as a clear national service, with appointees answerable to the director general. Of course it takes account of local circumstances and relations with boards of visitors, but that is the general framework. The amendment would mean that the attempt to establish a National Probation Service with a national chief officer would have the problem that the executives attempting to deliver the service would not be appointed by that chief officer—and, ultimately, by the Secretary of State.
Under the amendment, those executives would be appointed by the area boards. That is not a workable arrangement, and it would undermine the goal of establishing a National Probation Service, which is shared by hon. Members of all parties.
In the debate in the other place, Baroness Blatch talked about divided loyalties. I believe that some loyalties will be divided wherever one draws the line, but that more loyalties would be divided if one drew the line according to the amendment rather than according to the Bill.
There are plenty of examples of more centralist approaches being adopted. For instance, the previous Administration did so when they replaced regional health authorities with civil servants appointed as regional general managers as part of the national health service executive. The changes proposed in the Bill are being made for reasons that are similar, although not identical.
We want there to be local responsiveness, which can be dealt with by the local probation boards that the Bill also establishes.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary is entitled to a view that is entirely rational, but other people take a view based on the example of police chiefs. Outside London, they are appointed locally by police authorities as part of the criminal justice service. However, the right hon. Gentleman cited examples to show the wide variation of performance among probation services. Does not he accept that that argument is not necessarily one that supports a centralised service? Inspectorates—in the probation service, or in prisons or education—are meant to deal with such variations. Could not better results in terms of consistency of performance be achieved if the inspectorate of the probation service worked to ensure it? That would not require a central appointments system. The argument that ensuring consistency of performance requires centralisation does not hold up as a political conclusion.

Mr. Straw: With respect, I contend that, although good and effective inspection is a necessary condition for


achieving greater consistency of performance, it is not sufficient in itself. Proper management structures are needed as well, and the Government submit that those structures should be as I have described.
The argument about chief officers of police does not really hang together. Although such officers are appointed by the police authorities, they go through the highly centralist funnel of the senior command course before appointment. To get on to that, there is a biennial selection process, with a high degree of screening and national moderation as to who forms the cadre from which those local police officers are appointed. In any event, although the police authority appoints them, they have very few responsibilities in respect of the conduct of the office of chief officer because he or she is operationally independent and answerable to the courts and the Secretary of State more often than to the police authority.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. In a previous existence, I was involved in the pursuit of coterminosity in the context of the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994 in which the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), was also involved. I am not unfamiliar with the pursuit of coterminosity between police, the probation service and prosecuting authorities—in fact, I am rather bound up in it. Have we lost sight of coterminosity of magistrates courts' jurisdictions as well? Why not do them all?

Mr. Straw: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's experience. We are doing that as well, and I am sorry that I omitted to say that.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is already a precedent for central, as it were, control with local leaders in the Crown Prosecution Service as now restructured, in that the Director of Public Prosecutions appoints the local chief prosecutors? I have reservations about the Bill, so will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the mistake of underfunding the Crown Prosecution Service when it was set up will not be repeated when the new service is set up?

Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says in his opening remarks. There is a higher degree of local responsiveness under these arrangements than under the Crown Prosecution Service.
There were two major flaws in the way in which the CPS was established in 1985. One was to make it a national service without any regard to local need and to construct administrative arrangements in England and Wales that defied local consultation responsiveness. The second flaw was significantly to underfund the service. I am pleased to say that after a period in which the funding of the probation service went down in the closing years of the previous Administration—1997–98—we have been able to increase funding in the past two years, including this year. For the future, there will be a significant increase in funding because we recognise that a new service needs properly to be provided.

Mr. Bermingham: In asking that question, may I declare an interest as a member of the Bar? I forgot to mention it, but I think that everyone knows.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): That has been noted. Thank you.

Miss Widdecombe: May I also congratulate you on your occupancy of the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome you? This is the first time that I have performed under your eagle eye, and it is indeed a great pleasure to see you.
Once again, I see some merit in the Government's proposals. I see genuine merit in the central appointment of chief probation officers. However, I also see many problems, and I am not convinced that the Secretary of State has addressed them sufficiently.
The first problem is that of clear line management. How will that be aided if the chief probation officers owe their loyalty to the Secretary of State who appoints them but are accountable to their local wards? That seems a recipe for confusion. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said on that point, and he glossed over it rather. I would be grateful if he could return to the issue in his closing remarks.
As for parallels, chairmen of NHS trusts, for example, are appointed locally, as are chief constables. There does not seem to be an overwhelming case, at this stage, for having central appointments of chief probation officers. The right hon. Gentleman made the point with considerable force that if we ever wanted to amalgamate the prison and probation services, it would be sensible to have one system of appointments rather than two, and I understand that. However, we are not at that stage. The right hon. Gentleman has already said tonight, for example, that he does not want to join the inspectorate immediately. Therefore, it seems rather premature to appoint chief probation officers centrally.
I could see more merit in the Secretary of State's desire to take more direct control if he did not already have extensive powers. An amendment suggested in another place allows him to approve appointments, so he would still be able, effectively, to block an unsuitable choice. I remind the Home Secretary of the words of Baroness Blatch. She said in another place:
What benefit … is there in one individual being contracted to a different employer? It makes no sense. The Secretary of State's powers are not impeded one iota, but what is important is that the chief officer … has a clear management line.
Baroness Blatch went on to say:
The Secretary of State will still retain the right of approval over the appointment of chief officers. He will still be able to appoint and remove boards. He will have control of 100 per cent. of funding and allocation of funding. He will set overall objectives for the service. He will receive reports from the inspectorate and will be given regular statistical and financial information, audit reports and annual reports from each board. He will also have power of direction and default. For goodness sake, those are sufficient powers!—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1154–61.]
Baroness Blatch also said in a further debate on the Bill:
The relationship of the chief officer to other staff and to the board is also critical. For the employer of the chief officer to be the Secretary of State and the employers of all other staff to be the boards will create difficulties and possibly at times divided loyalties.—[Official Report, House of Lords,31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 801.]
That was the essence of the argument in the other place and it is the essence of our argument tonight. However, I shall be kind to the Secretary of State, in a rare moment


of benevolence towards him. If he can address the points that I have raised with sufficient rigour and conviction, I will not seek to divide the House.

Jackie Ballard: May I also congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome you to your post?
As the Home Secretary said, this is a very important issue. We are asking questions such as who employs chief probation officers, to whom do they owe their loyalty and to whom are they accountable.
We have heard from the Home Secretary and from an ex-Home Office Minister, who warmed to the Home Secretary's proposals, but in the House of Lords a number of ex-Home Office Ministers spoke in favour of the amendments. They believed, as we do, that the Government's proposals are a recipe for confusion of accountability and authority, leaving local boards in an invidious position. The proposals would set up a management structure with an in-built tension—something that the Secretary of State said that he wanted to avoid. Perhaps it betrays the Government's secret—or not so secret—desire for a National Probation Service. I see that that woke up the Minister.

Mr. Boateng: It is not secret.

Jackie Ballard: Perhaps it is not so secret. However, I thought that the Government believed that there was an important role for local probation boards—so important that they want to appoint them all themselves—and therefore a role for local discretion, priorities and needs; otherwise it may as well be a nationalised probation service. Surely, local probation boards are to administer a local service, although they will take direct instructions from the Home Office, get their funding directly from it, and will have to adhere to national standards and priorities. However, those should be used and interpreted in the light of local needs; otherwise, why have local boards at all? If the Minister disagrees, perhaps he should intervene.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred to Lords amendment No. 121, which was accepted in the House of Lords, supported by many of my noble Friends. It would give the Secretary of State the right to approve those appointments, as happens with chief police officers. We should remind ourselves that the Secretary of State is to appoint all the members of local boards and can dismiss them or their chairmen if he thinks that they are not performing properly or not carrying out the tasks that he wishes them to perform. Surely, therefore, he can trust his appointees to make the right appointment in choosing their chief officer.

Mr. Bermingham: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady, and a thought has started to cross my mind. If we take the city of Birmingham and the next-door town of Wolverhampton, which are not in the same local government area, why should there be different needs in two adjacent towns? The hon. Lady's argument about the board meeting local needs has no great substance, so perhaps she will provide an explanation.

Jackie Ballard: It sounds as if the hon. Gentleman is arguing against having local boards at all, although I had

understood that that was not his opinion. Surely he would accept that, at the very least, there are different patterns of criminal activity and varying availability of, for example, social housing and employment, in different parts of the country. I shall not take up the House's time going through all the different types of needs, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman took that line.
In Committee, the Minister challenged me to count the number of new powers that the Bill will give to the Secretary of State. I have to confess that I have not had enough idle moments to complete what he knows is a lengthy task. I suspect that he has not had enough idle moments, either. However, the power is a centralising power too far. The Central Probation Council, which is the probation employers' organisation, generally welcomes and supports the Bill, but it has strong feelings about this issue. In its briefing, it states:
The Home Office consultations on the Prisons/Probations Review and "Joining Forces to Protect the Public" set out various options for the future governance of the probation service, including a national service with "local reference groups or advisory boards". The government did not choose that option. Instead, local probation boards retaining the full duties of employers of probation staff were decided upon.
The council states:
It is important to recognise the corporate status of the new boards and the responsibilities placed on them, not only by the Home Office, employment law, financial regulation, health and safety regulations, the Better Quality Services initiatives and the Human Rights Act.
Chief officers will be placed in a difficult position as members of a local board who administer a local service but receive direct instructions from their Home Office boss.
The Home Secretary said that, for the effective performance of the service, it was important to be able to make the chief officer appointment centrally. However, in the national health service, chief executives are employed by local trusts and, as we have already heard, chief constables are employed by police authorities. The Home Secretary said that lack of consistency in the probation service had been a major problem in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, does that not suggest a failure of the inspectorate to monitor and report on adherence to national standards?
The Home Secretary talked about the centralised approvals system of chief police officers and said that it could not be compared to the system for probation officers. In responding to our debate, will he comment on the new assessment centre process for the appointment of chief probation officers? That process will be similar to that governing the appointment of chief police officers. Our debate on this group of amendments has been the longest so far tonight because it concerns the balance of power and lines of accountability, which are key issues in the Bill. I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that her party is not inclined to oppose the Government on this matter. Liberal Democrat Members are inclined to oppose the Government on their failure to support these Lords amendments and we hope that the right hon. Lady will join us in the Lobby.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) set me the difficult test


of answering her questions with sufficient rigour and conviction to satisfy her. She is on an each-way bet and, should she wish to vote with Liberal Democrat Members once I have finished, that would be consistent with what she said earlier.
I should like to deal with the key issue raised by the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). When discussing institutional change, there is always a tendency to think that it is possible to lay down single lines of accountability and answerability and to think that there must be an algorithm that can establish those to the exclusion of other, more complex, arrangements. However, life is not like that, especially not in a large society in a big country of 55 million people, with 50 million living in England and Wales.
We are trying to do two things—run a national service and make it locally responsive—so there will be a tension. There is not a single line of accountability, but lines of accountability, answerability and responsiveness are drawn. That is no different in the public sector than in the private sector. I can think of plenty of examples in which large national companies wish to ensure that they maintain a national operational framework at the same time as they secure responsiveness to local need. They do that by having the chief executive of each of their subsidiaries appointed by the main board but, day by day, that chief executive is a member of the subsidiary local board, which, in turn, represents the local area or the specific interest of that local subsidiary company. There are other examples in the public sector.
Of course, we will look at parallels. However, in each service in the public sector from, at one end, highly local services such as planning and environmental health, to the armed forces at the other, there are different arrangements to provide for the balance between local responsiveness and national direction according to the needs and functions of each service. We must try to make a bespoke service.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked about clear management lines, which were also mentioned by Baroness Blatch. Under the arrangements, the lines of management are clear and the national chief officer will be appointed by the Secretary of State. In turn, the area chief officers will be formally appointed by the Secretary of State, but the national chief officer will have a great deal to do with those appointments. Those chief officers are answerable for what happens in their local areas. Moreover, they are full members of the local boards, to which they and other members are appointed by the Secretary of State, so they are all appointed on the same basis. As for the chairs of NHS trusts, may I tell the right hon. Lady that it is on the record that they are appointed by the Secretary of State, not appointed locally. Chief executives in the NHS are appointed locally, but the chairs are not, although they have a semi-executive position, which must be borne in mind.
That arrangement in the NHS delivers the right balance between clear management lines in a national service and local responsiveness. Local chief officers are appointed by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the national chief officer, but are full members of their local board, take part in discussions at a local board level and, within the local board's terms of reference, must abide by its decisions. They could be outvoted on the local board.
I ask the House to consider what would happen in the reverse situation in which the chief officer was not a member of the local board but had been appointed by it and was subordinate to it. That must be so; one cannot be appointed by a local board and suddenly become a member of it. It would be odd for the local board to be the employer of one of its own members. Such an extraordinary arrangement would raise difficulties over any employment issue.

Jackie Ballard: rose—

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Lady is about to mention head teachers, she is right and I am wrong. I knew that there was some flaw in my argument and it is unfortunate that it occurred to me after I had spoken. However, having chaired the board of governors of a large comprehensive, I have been through difficulties over employment of a head teacher—not the current one. Where there are problems with the employment of a head teacher, the fact that the head teacher is a member of the governing body that appointed him or her raises serious difficulties. I shall now make a good point on the basis of the facts, having made a not-so-good one without the backing of the facts.
If the alternative arrangement proposed by the Opposition were introduced, there would apparently—only apparently—be clearer lines of communication locally. However, it would be certain that national lines of communication would be much more confused. In effect, because the local board had appointed a person, that person would think himself or herself much more answerable to his or her employers than he or she was nationally accountable. That would undermine the concept of a national probation service.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: In a moment.
Among other things, that would make it more difficult in practice to hold the Secretary of State to account for what was going on in an alleged national service. People would say that it was a national service in name but not in practice.

Mr. Dawson: My right hon. Friend has started to answer my point, but we are discussing an important national service and we need to address both consistency and cultural change. We may be moving away from what has been something of a social work service to one that has, as one of its principal aims, the protection of the public. Is it not an index of the Government's seriousness that they propose to manage that change in the way that they do?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who brings to this issue a great deal of experience gained before he came into the House. I know of the interest that he has taken in these matters since he was elected.
More eloquently than I will, my hon. Friend made my next point in answer to the questions of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald on whether the powers that would remain if Baroness Blatch's amendments were to be included in the Bill would be


sufficient for overall management of the service. There are powers of direction and powers, in one form or another, of effective veto. Given the task before us—the dynamic task of securing the cultural change in the probation service to which my hon. Friend referred—such negative powers of veto on appointment or to issue directions are necessary but not sufficient to achieve change. If we are to achieve cultural change against deep-seated conventions within the probation service and to raise the performance of the average and less-than-average to the level of the best, we need a more continuous process of management, which our structure will secure.
I do not suggest that we are proposing the perfect solution. There is not one. However, on balance, our proposals better achieve the overall aims agreed between all parties for a national probation service. They will also better secure proper accountability, effectiveness and consistency in the national probation service.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 142.

Division No. 332]
[7.36 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Cawsey, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chaytor, David


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Bayley, Hugh
Coleman, Iain


Beard, Nigel
Colman, Tony


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cooper, Yvette


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corston, Jean


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Blears, Ms Hazel



Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Borrow, David
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darvill, Keith


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davidson, Ian


Browne, Desmond
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burden, Richard
Dawson, Hilton


Burgon, Colin
Dean, Mrs Janet


Butler, Mrs Christine
Denham, John


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dismore, Andrew


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Drew, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Drown, Ms Julia


Caplin, Ivor
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Casale, Roger
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caton, Martin
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)





Edwards, Huw
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Efford, Clive
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lammy, David


Ennis, Jeff
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Laxton, Bob


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lepper, David


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Leslie, Christopher


Flint, Caroline
Levitt, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Follett, Barbara
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lock, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Love, Andrew


Foulkes, George
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Barry
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gerrard, Neil
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gibson, Dr Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonnell, John


Godsiff, Roger
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNamara, Kevin


Grocott, Bruce
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
MacShane, Denis


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McWalter, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mallaber, Judy


Hanson, David
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, Keith
Merron, Gillian


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Home Robertson, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hood, Jimmy
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morley, Elliot


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Humble, Mrs Joan



Hurst, Alan
Mountford, Kali


Hutton, John
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mudie, George


Illsley, Eric
Mullin, Chris


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jamieson, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Norris, Dan


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)



O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)



Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pickthall, Colin


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pike, Peter L


Keeble, Ms Sally
Plaskitt, James


Kemp, Fraser



Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pollard, Kerry


Khabra, Piara S
Pond, Chris


Kidney, David
Pound, Stephen


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kingham, Ms Tess
Prosser, Gwyn






Purchase, Ken
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Quin, Fit Hon Ms Joyce
Stringer, Graham


Quinn, Lawrie
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Rammell, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)



Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rogers, Allan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Roy, Frank
Todd, Mark


Ruane, Chris
Touhig, Don


Ruddock, Joan
Trickett, Jon


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Truswell, Paul


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Sawford, Phil
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sedgemore, Brian
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Shaw, Jonathan
Tynan, Bill


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Ms Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Ms Claire


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wareing, Robert N


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Watts, David


Singh, Marsha
White, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)



Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Wills, Michael


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Winnick, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Snape, Peter
Wood, Mike


Soley, Clive
Woodward, Shaun


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woolas, Phil


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony


Stevenson, George
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wyatt, Derek


Stinchcombe, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stoate, Dr Howard
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Greg Pope.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Allan, Richard



Amess, David
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chidgey, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Ballard, Jackie
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beggs, Roy
Collins, Tim


Beith, Rt Hon AJ
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cotter, Brian


Bercow, John
Cran, James


Blunt, Crispin
Curry, Rt Hon David


Boswell, Tim
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brady, Graham
Davis, Fit Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brake, Tom
Day, Stephen


Brand, Dr Peter
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Breed, Colin
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flight, Howard


Burnett, John
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burns, Simon
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burstow, Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger





George, Andrew (St Ives)
Nicholls, Patrick


Gibb, Nick
Norman, Archie


Gidley, Sandra
Oaten, Mark


Gill, Christopher
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Öpik, Lembit


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ottaway, Richard


Gray, James
Page, Richard


Green, Damian
Paice, James


Greenway, John
Prior, David


Grieve, Dominic
Randall, John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hammond, Philip
Rendel, David


Ham's, Dr Evan
Robathan, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Robertson, Laurence


Hawkins, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sanders, Adrian


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shepherd, Richard


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jenkin, Bernard
Spring, Richard


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Keetch, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Key, Robert
Stunell, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkwood, Archy
Syms, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Livsey, Richard
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Llwyd, Elfyn
Trend, Michael


Loughton, Tim
Tyler, Paul


Luff, Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Waterson, Nigel


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Webb, Steve


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whittingdale, John


Malins, Humfrey
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Mates, Michael
Willis, Phil


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


May, Mrs Theresa
Yeo, Tim


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tellers for the Noes:


Moore, Michael
Mr. Bob Russell and


Moss, Malcolm
Sir Robert Smith.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 40 agreed to

Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 8, line 37, leave out paragraph (b)

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 42, 43, 135, 137 and 138 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Mr. Straw: This debate is about similar principles to those that we have just discussed. Essentially, it is about the overall management and structure of the National Probation Service, but our arguments in this case are even stronger than those on the previous group of amendments, which was about who should appoint and employ the local director under the national director for the service.
We believe that it would be wrong for local probation boards to hold land and that it would be inconsistent for them to do so in the context of a national organisation. Under the Bill, local probation boards will exist to deliver local services, to make a major contribution to protecting the public and to reduce reoffending. They should not have to dissipate that effort to deal with real estate. It is hard to discern what special qualities people appointed to a local probation board to help to contribute to the responsiveness of the service at a local level will necessarily have in respect of property holding.
It is worth bearing in mind the problems that currently arise. One probation committee chairman told my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that up to half of his committee meetings were spent dealing with property matters. That is not the purpose of boards, and neither should it be. The subsidiary point is that we would expect to manage the estate more efficiently and effectively from the centre. It is one sector in which real economies of scale can be obtained.
A further point relates to the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on how better to secure co-operation and co-ordination between the Prison Service and the local probation service. Much of that better co-ordination and co-operation will arise when they are working in the same place and it will be much easier to secure their operation from the same place if it is possible, as appropriate, to amalgamate offices and so on. That can be done far more easily through the National Probation Service than through the convoluted procedures that would be necessary if the land were held locally.
Let me deal with the canard that was raised in the other place—that if real estate were held by the National Probation Service, whenever local staff needed to change a light bulb, repair a leaking tap or make another repair they would have to seek authorisation from London. That is nonsense. Such matters would be dealt with locally and the day-to-day management of the properties that local probation boards occupy would be for them. I hope that the House accepts that there is a world of difference between buying and selling property and dealing with basic maintenance. I ask hon. Members to disagree with the Lords amendments.

Mr. Bercow: I welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Chair and congratulate you on your appointment.
The Home Secretary is a past master of uttering soothing bromides to reassure any Member who does not readily share his point of view. I am sure, however, that he will not be unduly surprised to learn that, despite the mellifluous tones in which he begged to differ with the noble Lords, Conservative Members are not persuaded. The purpose of the amendments is to allow local probation boards the opportunity to hold or manage land. The Home Secretary referred to the importance of probation boards, and it is arguable that their functions render it appropriate that they should at least have proper discretion over the type of property that they use and over variations in the use of that property. Many active in the service have suggested to us that they believe that that discretionary entitlement, which they might not choose to

exercise, is important. They are concerned about an unnecessary and, arguably, draconian confiscation of power by the Government.
The Government have hinted that there could be major restructuring of the property held by the probation service once that property is taken into the ownership of the Home Office. The Home Secretary referred gently to that a moment ago and contented himself with the modest observation—we know that "modesty" is his middle name—that benefits could result from the estate being run more effectively, as he put it, from the centre.
The Home Secretary is aware that I hold him in the highest esteem and that I do not intend unduly to damage his reputation or cause him to blush. He knows that I regard him as the best of a pretty bad bunch of Cabinet Ministers. He is unfailingly courteous, he attends to the argument and he is the closest approximation to a human being that I have yet encountered in a member of Her Majesty's new Labour Government. Although I think that he has many merits, I do not regard him as a suitable estate agent. I have never thought of him as an appropriate chief executive of Hambro Countrywide. It does not seem to me or my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that it is obvious—to put it mildly—that the control of the estate should be vested in the centre.
As we seek to establish the entitlement of local probation boards to exercise discretion, it is important briefly to rehearse the arguments to which the Home Secretary referred and which were uttered in the other place last month. I was particularly struck by the observations of my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, who discussed the issue on 31 October. She referred to the fact that the Government appeared to have in mind great savings and structural benefits from reorganisation. She was doubtful about that and referred to several letters that Lord Bassam, who speaks for the Government in the other place, had recently sent to interested Members. In paragraph 28 of one letter, he said:
We [the Government] are convinced, however, that there are sound reasons for concentrating ownership and overall management of the Probation estate in the national directorate.
What heady brew did Lord Bassam offer us in defence of that proposition? It amounted to a twofold assertion—nothing better than that. He said that the Government believed that
accounting responsibility will be placed squarely on the Government—
as though that were a benefit. It is not entirely clear to me that placing responsibility for accounting in the hands of the Government rather than with the local probation board, which is directly affected by financial management, is necessarily an advantage. His letter added that
there will be better opportunity to control investment procurement and development so as to make the best of all the assets of the National Probation Service.
Methinks I hear overtones of the old National Enterprise Board. There is a good deal here about nationalisation, even though the word did not trip off the Home Secretary's tongue. He is nothing if not new Labour writ large. He is the emblem of the project, so obviously he did not vouchsafe nationalisation, but that is what the Government have in mind. They have a curious justification—which is also somewhat offensive to the local probation service—for their proposed nationalisation


of the property estate. They have a notion that property will be better run centrally than if it is run by people who are directly responsible for delivering a quality service.
8 pm
Paragraph 29 of Lord Bassam's letter states:
It is also clear that the existing arrangements have worked far from well.
In support of that dubious proposition, a survey by Donaldson's, a firm of chartered surveyors, is cited. It was conducted in 1999 and
concluded that there was inadequate management of the estate despite excessive staffing and that a fair proportion of it was unsuitable for purpose and in poor repair.
I am doubtful about the reference to excessive staffing.
The Home Secretary cavilled at the suggestion that, as a result of the proposed change, control over relatively minor and prosaic matters, such as whether to insert a different light bulb, would be sapped from the local probation boards and conferred instead on a central leviathan. That may be so, but it is clear that the Government are considering rationalising the property estate and possibly reducing the number of people who are engaged at local level. What else are we to infer from the reference to excessive staffing?
Many people are not convinced that staffing at local level is excessive. If the Government are convinced otherwise, they should plainly and openly say so. They should not dress up their intentions in a centralising measure that gives the impression that the Government regard themselves as a property manager. Governments of both colours have a truly risible record of interference in the management of property.
I referred to the belief of Baroness Blatch that the management of local property, offices and interview rooms is best vested in local probation boards. Needless to say, despite the quizzical expression on the Minister of State's face, Baroness Blatch was not alone in expressing those concerns. She was joined, as she was at other times during the other place's Committee stage, by Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It was significant that Lord Phillips and his noble Friends chose to support the amendments tabled by Baroness Blatch. Specifically, Lord Phillips observed:
Far from relieving local probation boards of concern and worry, the proposals—
which the Government are advancing—
are likely to add to them. Nothing can be more frustrating than having relatively modest property matters dealt with via Whitehall, with the distancing and bureaucracy that that can and often does mean.
Lord Phillips continued:
I know from experience on quangos that it is a great boon to be able to handle one's own property matters. It invariably leads to quicker, more effective, more efficient and, in the end, cheaper property arrangements.
That is such a common-sense observation that only an extraordinarily clever person would choose to disagree with it, but, true to form, Lord Bassam did so. He seemed genuinely alarmed by the notion that local probation boards might retain and be granted discretion in the management of property.
The most curious aspect of the debate was that towards the end of the exchanges, apparently irritated with the observations of Baroness Blatch, Lord Bassam said:

My Lords, sometimes I believe that the noble Baroness does not understand that crime is a national and international phenomenon.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 818–821.]
There is not the slightest disagreement or uncertainty about that. The issue is, however, who manages the local resource—the land, the estate and the rooms, including their distribution and the functions to which they are put. We believe that there is much merit in leaving maximum discretion at the local level. We are worried by what seems to be a large-scale and, as far as we can judge it, an unnecessary arrogation of power to the centre.
To avoid doubt, and so that the Conservative position is clearly on the record, I should say that we are not arguing this issue as a great matter of principle.

Mr. Boateng: Ah!

Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman says "Ah" as though I had vouchsafed spectacular new information, which I have not. The issue is one of practicality. I yield to no one in my respect for and preoccupation with practicality. He can chunter disapprovingly from a sedentary position if the mood takes him, but I am simply saying that if the Government were able to advance a credible case, preferably with a costing attached, to demonstrate that the proposed changes would create savings that could more effectively be used for the purpose of implementing the responsibilities of the probation service at local level, we would be happy to concede. In short, if the Home Secretary proved his case, and argued by using evidence rather than advocacy, we would be content. However, it is not sensible to support and undertake a major accretion of power to the centre unless a proven benefit will result from that arrogation of power. We have not been so persuaded.
I have been very discriminating in presenting my argument because there are many other important issues to address. I could have quoted chapter and verse at substantially greater length, no doubt irritating the Minister of State in the process. I have resisted the sore temptation to dilate further on the subject. Suffice it to say that what the Government are proposing is not necessary. What my noble Friends argued for in the other place, supported by Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was sensible, moderate and justified. Indeed, it was, if I may politely so suggest, in accordance with the dictates of common sense. It is that proposition that I commend to the House.

Jackie Ballard: I shall be even briefer than the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
The three main assets or local resources that local probation boards will need to control to fulfil their statutory responsibilities are staff, finance and premises. Some people already doubt the ability of boards to secure the compliance of staff with their instructions in the event of a conflict between the board and the chief officer. We should bear it in mind that it was made clear in our earlier debate that the board and the chief officer will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
Funds will be provided only by the Home Office and it is now proposed that premises from which the boards' responsibilities are exercised will also be owned by the


Home Office, and managed, presumably, by another organisation with which the board will not have a contractual relationship. The Government's proposals on property will fundamentally weaken the role of boards. They must have some power with which to exercise their responsibilities. As we delve deeper into the Bill, it becomes clearer that local boards will have responsibilities without much power, and I wonder who will want to serve on them.
The Secretary of State said that it is more effective to manage and control the estate centrally. I recall that two or three years ago some newspapers and others described him as a liberal. I do not know whether he wanted that description—

Mr. Straw: It is true.

Jackie Ballard: Presumably that means that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes and wants that description. If he wants to deserve it, he will have to curb his desire to centralise everything. It might be a matter of practicality for the official Opposition to oppose centralisation on this subject, but it is a matter of principle for Liberals to oppose centralisation in general.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Lady tempts me to ask whether she has in mind the Home Secretary's condemnation of those he described in a famous speech as Hampstead liberals. He has subsequently reinforced that condemnation, as did his hon. Friends in Committee.

Jackie Ballard: I must confess that I do not know any liberals in Hampstead. I am sure that there are many liberals there, but I do not know them personally, so I cannot comment on what they are like or whether they are more or less liberal than the Home Secretary.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jackie Ballard: I do not think that Madam Deputy Speaker will allow us to go too far with this interchange, but I shall give way.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I know that she is always meticulous in the representation of the arguments of other right hon. and hon. Members. May I therefore point out in all seriousness that although the burden of our argument rests on practicality, there are, of course, issues of principle relating to the diffusion of power? We say that the principle of the diffusion of power is not an absolute.
If it could be shown that the benefits that would flow from centralisation were so enormous that they outweighed the general principle of decentralisation, we should be prepared to abide by the evidence. In this case, however, the Government want to centralise and do not have a decent argument, so the position that they are advancing is nonsense on stilts.

Jackie Ballard: The activities of the previous Government do not suggest that diffusion of power was an important principle for them. They might have undergone a damascene conversion that I had not

noticed—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the Hansard reporters heard that. The hon. Member for Buckingham said that he was not a great enthusiast for the previous Government. Perhaps we should leave that comment there.
The Secretary of State said that we need a nationally managed estate to deliver an effective service, but the national health service estate is not nationally managed: local health authorities and local trusts make decisions about the disposal of that estate depending on changing needs and changing means of delivering a service. They can then decide what to do with the proceeds and how to reinvest them in the local service.
I am not at all convinced by the Secretary of State's arguments, but he might be able to convince me if he can point to a precedent for the desperate need for a nationally managed estate to deliver an effective service

Mr. Straw: I place on record my sincere gratitude for the remarks of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who sought to damn me with great praise. We have a mutual regard. When I was thinking about complimenting him on his appointment, I considered saying that I regarded him as one of the finest adornments of the Opposition Benches to have been elected in 1997, but I did not want to damage his career. However, since he sought to do that to me, I now put it on the record.
The hon. Gentleman skated backwards and forwards, saying on the one hand that all he was doing was applying common sense. I agree that common sense needs to be applied in the case that we are considering, but if all that someone says is that it is a matter of practicality, there is not much behind the argument. On the other hand, he went in for hyperbolic adjectives, which suggested that there was a good deal of emotion behind his argument—for example, the use of the word "nationalisation".
The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal was, arguably, draconian. As I sometimes have to point out, the man who gave his name to that adjective was Draco. He was the chief magistrate in Athens in the 7th century BC, and is remembered for the fact that for virtually every offence in the Athenian criminal code he prescribed death. From that derives the word "draconian".
However one describes an argument about whether the National Probation Service or local area boards should hold the land, to suggest that either or both of those arrangements is draconian is pushing the meaning of the word a tad too far.
8.15 pm
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman spoke in tentative terms, saying that it was at least arguable that those functions might be undertaken at a local level, rather than at national level. It is a matter of degree. The decision to vest the land in the Secretary of State flows from the establishment of the National Probation Service, which we are trying better to manage.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that that could be seen as a covert way—he did not use that phrase—of securing cuts in staffing. One of the problems from which the probation service has suffered significantly in the years up to 1999–2000 is underfunding. In 1995–96, expenditure, in cash, was £420 million. That rose to £435 million in 1996–97 and, under a budget set by the


Conservatives, dropped to £428 million. I managed to get it back, under the Conservative spending plans, to £435 million, but it was tight. It then started to rise, to £453 million in 1999–2000 and to £480 million in the current financial year.
We are planning for expenditure to increase from the current baseline by about £97 million in 2001–02, by £139 million in 2002–03 and by £170 million in 2003–04. We are putting a great deal of extra money into the probation service, because we want to make the service better. We do not have the margins, we do not want money wasted and we think that there are savings to be made in the overall management of the real estate in the probation service by the property being vested nationally.
I say to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) that I do not know enough about the matter, but it is arguable whether the arrangements for the vesting of NHS property in a variety of organisations work better than those that would apply if it were vested in a single institution.
The hon. Member for Buckingham said that we proposed that the property of the probation service was "better run" centrally than locally. We are not discussing the running of the property—the fixing of roofs or the day-to-day management of the property. Of course that should be in the hands of the local area boards, and it will be.
We are discussing much bigger issues—the disposal and acquisition of property—and there is no doubt that the system can be better managed at national level. Why? Without national arrangements, a local area board could become committed to a particular office or a particular piece of real estate, and arguments could develop. Of course, local area boards are entitled to their view, but in a national service that we are trying to make more efficient, someone has to decide, and ultimately that should be the Secretary of State.
When we compare the running of the probation service with other services, we should bear in mind that in practice the accountability of the local probation board or committees to anyone other than those committees has been very thin. The wider public, local newspapers, Members of Parliament and local councillors do not examine what goes on from day to day. The circle is pretty self-contained.
If there was a good argument between a local area board and the National Probation Service about whether a property should be disposed of, that would be better ventilated in this place, where the local Member of Parliament could question the Secretary of State. I do not say that in a mellifluous way. I am not trying to pour bromide over the argument. I am saying that we have thought about the matter and that, on balance, we believe that the proposed arrangement would be better. I hope that it commends itself to the House and to the other place.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, and I note the terms in which he makes the case. He suggests that local probation boards operate within a relatively closed environment and that there is no significant opportunity for local residents or the media to voice their concerns about their policies. Does he accept that if centralisation is to take place there must be

a clear, publicised mechanism whereby local disapproval of national intentions is formally taken into account and respected in the decision-making process?

Mr. Straw: Yes.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44 disagreed to.

Amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 45 and 46 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 47 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 48 to 50 disagreed to.

Amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 51 agreed to.

After Clause 23

Lords amendment: No. 52, to insert the following new clause—Provision for the protection of children—
.—(1) The Protection of Children Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act") shall have effect as if the Service were a child care organisation within the meaning of that Act.
(2) Arrangements which the Service makes with an organisation under section 13(1) must provide that, before selecting an individual to be employed under the arrangements in a child care position the organisation—
 (a) must ascertain whether the individual is included in any of the lists mentioned in section 7(1) of the 1999 Act, and
(b) if he is included in any of those lists, must not select him for that employment.
(3) Such arrangements must provide that, if at any time the organisation has power to refer a relevant individual to the Secretary of State under section 2 of the 1999 Act (inclusion in list on reference following disciplinary action etc.), the organisation must so refer him.
In this subsection "relevant individual" means an individual who is or has been employed in a child care position under the arrangements.
(4) In this section "child care position" and "employment" have the same meanings as in the 1999 Act.

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 66, 71 and 72.

Mr. Boateng: I add my voice to those congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. It is a pleasure to serve under you in this first debate on a topic of and in which, having visited with your local magistrates court, I know that you have a profound knowledge and interest.
Amendment No. 52 makes the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, its officers and organisations performing functions on behalf of CAFCASS, subject to the Protection of Children Act 1999. The others are more minor amendments, most of which add to or tidy up the definition of working with children in part II. Exceptions are amendments Nos. 57 and 58, which ensure that the definition of a qualifying sentence is accurate, and amendment No. 60, which closes


a loophole in the offences created by ensuring that it is an offence to fail to remove a disqualified individual from working with children—for example, by holding open a relevant post for someone.
Amendment No. 59 provides for the restoration of disqualification orders through application by a chief officer of police or director of social services to the High Court. The other amendments add appropriate positions to the list of regulated positions—members of the youth justice board and the Children's Commissioner for Wales—or clarify the definition by taking into account the changes currently taking place as a result of the Local Government Act 2000.
The Protection of Children Act gives greater protection to children who may be put at risk of harm. The Act places a duty on child-care organisations to refer to the Secretary of State individuals who have been employed in a child-care position where they have been dismissed on grounds of misconduct which harmed a child or placed a child at risk. Individuals are covered even if they retire or resign before they are dismissed. Child-care organisations which intend to employ someone are placed under a duty to ensure that that person is not on the list held by the Secretary of State. If that person is found to be on the list, the child-care organisation must not employ them.
As officers of CAFCASS, and those performing functions on behalf of CAFCASS, will have unsupervised contact with children, it is essential that the measures apply to the new service. We have considered carefully the principle of allowing for reinstatement of the disqualification order introduced in part II. Having had the opportunity to consider the issue, we have come to the conclusion that it would be right in principle to make some provision to cover the matter, even if, as we believe, there should be a need for it only in rare cases, if at all. The amendment allows for the restoration of the disqualification order without in any way jeopardising the strength of the original order or the consideration of the tribunal for lifting it in the first place.
I trust that the other amendments to part II will not prove contentious. They serve only to ensure that disqualified persons do not remain in posts which would grant them access to children and enhance the range of, and properly define where necessary, those posts from which disqualified people are barred. In both cases the reasoning is clear and, I hope that the House will agree, valid.

Mr. Hawkins: I associate the official Opposition with the Minister's welcome to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your new capacity.
On the third group of amendments, I said that we would return to the sensitive issues concerning the protection of children. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have noticed that with this group of amendments we have now reached that point. Perhaps even more significant are the next two groups of amendments, which deal with some of the most sensitive issues.
The Minister is right to talk about the importance of strengthening the Bill, but I want to take a little time to make the point that it might have been more appropriate had he paid tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Blatch for her initiative on behalf of the official Opposition with

regard to the reinstatement of disqualification order, which the Minister mentioned in relation to amendment No. 59.
Before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, took the Chair, but as other hon. Members will recall, those on the Treasury Bench suggested that we were being unjust to their noble Friend Lord Bassam of Brighton in criticising the number of climbdowns that he has been forced to make, but amendment No. 59 is the clearest possible illustration of what we were talking about. Because these matters are important to disqualification orders in relation to those who are a threat to children, I want to set out the exact sequence of events.
On the second day in Committee in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch described in some detail the need for what was then amendment No. 97, headed "Reinstatement of Disqualification Order". She set out all the good reasons that the Government have now belatedly accepted as to why that was necessary. She was then faced with a lengthy attack on her reasoning and the amendment from none other than Lord Bassam. In attacking the Opposition's amendments, he said:
I suggest that the way in which the noble Baroness seeks to reintroduce a disqualification order is not workable. We want to see a workable scheme. I believe that the scheme we have offered is workable. I believe that the explanation I have given for ways in which a ban could be reintroduced is coherent. We do not think that it is necessary to do what the noble Baroness seeks.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1538.]
That was in response to many serious points that my noble Friend had made about matters relating to spent convictions. However, when the Government were later forced to change their stance, Lord Bassam did not participate in the climbdown. Another Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, dealt with the matter little more than a month later on 8 November when the Bill was being reconsidered by another place.
8.30 pm
My noble Friend Baroness Blatch said:
My Lords, I shall be very brief. As noble Lords will have noticed, another amendment has been tabled covering the same area of concern—
reinstatement of disqualification order—
I have had throughout the passage of the Bill. I am deeply grateful to the Government for their Amendment No. 30. I shall now sit down and wait for the noble Lord to introduce that amendment.
Up popped the Attorney-General, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who, by complete contrast with Lord Bassam of Brighton, said:
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is quite right. I listened to the way in which she deployed her argument on the point of—I believe that I paraphrase it accurately—the restoration of a disqualification to a previously disqualified individual, and, if I may say so, I believe that her argument had substantial merit.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1536–37.]

Mr. McWalter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hawkins: I shall give way in a moment to the hon. Gentleman who played a distinguished part in our Committee proceedings and, wisely, did not always support the Government. I shall finish my point before giving way.
There is no clearer example of a U-turn. In only a month, Ministers moved from claiming that the proposals of Baroness Blatch were unworkable to saying that her


argument had "substantial merit" and introducing a similar Government amendment. The only practical difference in the Government amendment was changing my noble Friend's description of "reinstatement of disqualification order" to the Government's wording, "restoration" of disqualification order. Lord Bassam of Brighton is rightly called Lord Climbdown.

Mr. McWalter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his interesting remarks about my role in Committee. He knows that in Committee we were keen to strike a balance between protection of children and the protection of those against whom malevolent accusations of child abuse might be made. People who have a disqualification order but have not breached it may be especially vulnerable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what he portrays as a climbdown could be an attempt to try to resolve the tension between conflicting ideas about the rights of the different individuals involved?

Mr. Hawkins: I pay a further compliment to the hon. Gentleman, who has again shown his skills, on which the Home Secretary has rightly congratulated him. He is right. We spent much time in Committee discussing that important point. However, it will not have escaped his notice that, if the Government had listened to the comments of the Opposition in the House or in another place, and not simply said that our proposals were unworkable, we might have reached the current, more sensible position, which the Minister presented much earlier this evening.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that all hon. Members are aware of the dangers of malevolent allegations. Perhaps he saw in the national press last week details of an especially harrowing case. Two innocent teachers had been the subject of invented allegations. The charges were dropped against one and the other was acquitted. The judge made some savage criticisms of the investigation, which was insufficient; proper investigation would have led to a much earlier decision. There was no basis to the allegations. Discussing such points led to spending some time on a good and important debate in Committee.
As I said earlier, the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to accepting some of the points that we made in Committee and in another place. I am delighted that they have done that, and I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly. However, it is important to recognise that the Bill is a classic example of the way in which it should be possible for Ministers, civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen to take on board the sensible points made by opposition parties much earlier. If that happened, we would have better legislation more quickly.
The Minister is right to say that some amendments are minor and consequential. However, we must be careful that we get the measure right and that we ensure that children are protected. The Bill is much better because restoration of disqualification orders is possible under it. I hope that the Minister will pay tribute to the substantial contribution of Opposition Front Benchers in another place to improving the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I, too, have not yet spoken when you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I add my congratulations on your elevation.
I want to make two points. First, there is clearly a general interest in making sure that the law succeeds in preventing people with a record of abuse or relevant sex offences from working with children, and recording their past history accurately so that future employers and, more important, their charges are protected.
During the summer, the Government consulted Opposition parties about the way in which the law needed to be advanced. I was grateful for the positive consideration of and constructive responses to suggestions that I made to the Secretary of State and copied to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). That resulted at least in conversation about the way forward. That is one example of how we are trying to tighten up the system for protecting children in the proposed legislation as it progresses. I am sure that, whatever the details of debates in another place, we all share a desire to get it right. I compliment the Government and those in another place who sought to tighten up the rules on sex offenders working with children.
Secondly, I want to ask a question that links the Bill to the measure on the equal age of consent, which is being considered at the other end of the building. One issue has been raised both in the context of the Bill that we are considering and of the other measure. If, at the end of the Session, we enacted the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, which deals with correcting a distinction with regard to sexual activity, two matters will remain anomalous. I do not pretend to have perfect knowledge, but they are clear.
First, there is currently a defence at law, which the Minister will know well, whereby a young adult male who has sexual intercourse with a girl who is under 16 is entitled to plead that he believed her to be over 16. For obvious reasons, that defence is not open to someone who is over 24. That matter has not been addressed in the context of equal treatment of people, irrespective of whether they are charged with heterosexual or homosexual offences.
Secondly, and more importantly, if the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill is enacted, it will render people between 16 and 18 potentially not guilty of an offence of which they would otherwise be guilty. Will Ministers address that issue and ensure that legislation does not continue to regard someone as a criminal when their actions are no longer criminal under another measure? Perhaps the Minister will not be able to deal with that matter now. It relates in general terms to amendment No. 59, which includes references to people who are under the age of 18 when they commit offences. That must be reread with reference to disqualification, not the offence. How will the Government correct an anomaly that will remain if both Bills become law at the end of the Session?

Mr. Boateng: I thank the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) for his description of our approach to the aspect of the Bill that deals specifically with the protection of children. Our intention has always been to be as inclusive as possible. That means including all parties in both Houses. I believe that that is vital. Protecting children is not a matter on which one should seek to score party political advantage.
I regretted the tone and, at times, the content of the speech of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for


Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was not, to my knowledge, in the Chamber for his speech. She was not within sight to hear his speech, and one cannot fail to notice her. She was not in my direct line of vision. If she was hidden behind the ample figure of the silent one on the Opposition Bench, all well and good—lucky her. I did not see her, but had she heard the hon. Gentleman's contribution I do not believe that she would have found it of such a nature as to commend itself to a House that was trying to consider these matters in a consensual manner. It really does not do to attack noble Lords in those terms and in that way.
I pay tribute to all noble Lords and Baronesses for the care and attention with which they addressed these important issues during the passage of the Bill. I am grateful for the improvements that have been made.
I see the right hon. Lady is fixing me with one of her looks. I am only too happy to rise to her challenge on the rigour and conviction stakes, but if she expects contrition from this Minister, she is looking in the wrong direction. We do not have anything to be contrite about.
In Committee, my Front-Bench colleagues and I appreciated enormously the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), because they were rooted in real experience of these issues. They were constructive and at all times supportive. I am very grateful to him for the stance that he took. I do not regard criticism, knowledge and constructive contributions to debates on issues of public importance as anything other than supportive. That is what consideration of a Bill in Committee and on the Floor of both Houses is all about. I am grateful to all those who have made this section of the Bill that much stronger as a result of their deliberations.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness Blatch. We were not able to accept her original amendment. My noble Friend Lord Bassam was right to reject it. She argued that the tribunal should reinstate the order. Our concern was that, in reinstating an order which it had discharged, it may be tempted to discharge disqualification orders in borderline cases knowing that it could correct a mistake subsequently. That would have been entirely the wrong approach, which is why we took the view that the High Court was important in this area. The Bill as amended has sufficient focus and rigour to ensure that the danger of Baroness Blatch's amendment to which I alluded has been avoided. With that in mind, I urge the House to give these amendments its blessing.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 66 agreed to.

After Clause 36

Lords amendment: No. 67, to insert the following new clause—Extension of offence: conduct towards 14 and 15 year olds—
. In section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), for "fourteen" there is substituted "sixteen".")

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 68 and 69.

Mr. Boateng: At present, it is an offence under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 for a person to commit an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under 14 or incite a child under that age to such an act with him or another. The first new clause will raise the age of the child against whom the offence could be committed from 13 to 15. In Northern Ireland, a similar offence of indecent conduct towards a child in section 22 of the Northern Ireland Children and Young Persons Act 1968 applies to under 14-year-olds. The second new clause will raise the age of the child against whom the offence could be committed in Northern Ireland from 13 to 16.
Amendment No. 69 will increase the maximum sentence under the Protection of Children Act 1978 for taking, making, distributing, showing and possessing with a view to distribution indecent photographs of children under 16 on conviction on indictment from three years' imprisonment or a fine, or both, to a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine, or both.
The amendment will also make the simple possession of indecent images of children under 16 an either-way offence, and will increase the maximum penalty available under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 from six months' imprisonment or a fine, or both, to a term not exceeding five years' imprisonment or a fine, or both.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boateng: Before I turn to the detail of this amendment, I should like to set out the Government's position on this area as a whole, then the hon. Gentleman can certainly intervene.
We agree on the need to protect children and on the urgency of action. The Government are working actively on a number of fronts, of which the criminal law is an important aspect, but not the only one. As hon. Members will recall from our debate in Committee, we all realise the importance of the criminal law in this area, but we also recognise the other steps that need to be taken by the agencies and the parents' responsibilities. It is clearly vital for those who seek to offend against children, on or off the internet, to be prevented from doing so, and to be dealt with effectively as far as possible by the criminal law.
It may be helpful if I deal first with Lords amendment No. 69. The Government fully share public abhorrence of the crime to which it refers. The production and possession of child pornography is condemned by all right-thinking people. We well understand that misuse of the internet has led to an increase in the number of offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978, and public concern about the circulation of such material has understandably grown. The amendment would ensure that the penalties available for offences of this kind reflected the seriousness with which society regards them. We cannot forget that pictures of child pornography are pictures of child abuse: nothing more, nothing less. This is abuse, and it must be treated as abuse.
In the light of our anxiety to ensure that the law delivers protection for children—as well as the wider concern about increased incidences of child pornography offences—the time is now right for enhancement of the penalties.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I think there was just one inaccuracy in the Minister's introductory remarks. He mentioned amendment of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. According to my reading of Lords amendment No. 67, it would extend the law protecting children under 14—rather than 13—to those under 16. It is a small matter, but I think the Minister must have received an inaccurate briefing.

Mr. Boateng: I do not think so, but I will certainly give the hon. Gentleman reassurance that he seeks.
Let me now deal with the details of Lords amendments Nos. 67 and 68. We considered carefully what was said in another place. It appeared that, although our laws on sex offences are comprehensive, it was felt that the law was inadequate to deal with some preparatory acts, as they might be described, prior to the commission of any substantive offence. Particular concern was expressed about internet chatrooms, which are a whole new phenomenon with which parents and, now, the law must deal.
In Committee, Lady Blatch cited three cases in which children had been lured by men over the internet into meetings and the intention or result was a sexual crime. I have received briefings on that from both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and our own police during the last 18 months or so. The problem is global, and these people operate globally—and in ways that require a response.
Lady Blatch pointed out that no action had been taken in two cases, and said that that demonstrated the inadequacy of, in particular, the Indecency with Children Act 1960. At present, however, the Act can apply only to those of 13 and under. In two of the cases cited by Lady Blatch, the girls involved were above that age.
That is a loophole, and it will be plugged. The amendment would do that in a simple, straightforward manner—and, crucially, without creating further anomalies. If it were passed, the Act could apply in respect of any person under the age of consent: it could apply to those under 16 in England and Wales, and to those under 17 in Northern Ireland. 1 hope that that provides the clarification sought by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
What would be the effect of the amendment? It extends the protection offered by the 1960 Act to those aged 14 and 15 in England and Wales, and 16 in Northern Ireland. If, for instance, someone were to persuade or encourage a person of 15 to commit an act of gross indecency with him or another person, that behaviour—which might not be criminal at present—could come within the ambit of section 1 of the Act. We believe that much could be achieved by that change, which is simple and straightforward, as well as being right.
This is important, because I will be considering the comprehensive review of sex offences that resulted in the recommendations contained in "Setting the Boundaries". If further detailed changes to the law are required, they must be made on the basis of a sensible, comprehensive approach. They must not be complex piecemeal changes

that would only add to the confusion in the law. The aim of "Setting the Boundaries" was to enable us to deal with the issue comprehensively and to avoid the anomalies created over the years by an ad hoc approach.
We all want more protection for children from sex offenders. The proposed change would add significantly to that protection, without further distorting the law.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is right to say that this is an important matter, and we are pleased that the Government have tabled an amendment to the 1960 Act.
On 8 November, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Attorney-General, moved the amendment in column 1538 of the House of Lords Official Report. However, in that same debate, as the Minister pointed out, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch sought to persuade the Government to make yet more amendments. The Opposition remain concerned about the misuse of the internet by paedophiles. There is still a need for an even more thoroughgoing review of the law and we sought to persuade the Government to toughen the legislation, although we welcome the fact that they have taken all those matters extremely seriously. Even though more could have been done through the Bill, we hope that the Government will continue to consider the issues carefully and perhaps take an early legislative opportunity to do even more.
I hope that the Minister will again pay tribute to the constructive approach taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by my noble Friend Baroness Blatch in another place, on this issue above all. We agree with the Government that the protection of children is extremely important and all of us—from all parties and in both Houses—are concerned about it. There is no more serious danger to children than adult paedophiles who try to entrap young children by posing as children themselves. The Minister agrees with that and I hope that the Government will continue to listen. They may take another opportunity to strengthen the law still further, as we have requested.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There is a broad consensus on this important issue, which, given modern technology and the internet, has taken on a new relevance. Like others, I take a strong view, and it is right for political parties to hold firm views because that reflects not only public opinion, but our duty to ensure that people whom our society defines as children are protected. To achieve that, we need a clear law that punishes those who offend. Amendment No. 67, which applies to the Indecency with Children Act 1960, would take the indecency age limit up to 16. It refers clearly to the age of majority, which is also the school leaving age, and rightly does not add another age limit. No one should be in any doubt about that.
On amendment No. 69, it is right to send a tough signal that the courts should have significant powers to deal with people who commit offences involving using, passing and dealing with indecent photographs of children. The Minister was correct that there are examples of offences involving internet chatrooms and the passing of indecent photographs. The law must be able to deal very severely with people who commit such offences. Society wants the parties to stand together and put that view; amendment No. 69, by amending the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988, would achieve it.
On the amendment of the law in Northern Ireland, the Minister rightly pointed out that there is a different age of majority—l7, not 16—for these purposes. I shall not


stray into constitutional areas that contain important differences, but I ask Ministers, if they find it appropriate, to consider with colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland whether there may be an opportunity to review the ages of majority and consent to achieve consistency in this area of law. I understand that that is entirely a matter for separate Northern Irish and Scottish legislation, and I am also aware that for Northern Ireland there is an all-Ireland dimension in terms of legislation that relates to the Republic, but the different age limits and different legislation for offences committed in Northern Ireland have been a problem over the years and cases involving the European convention on human rights have been brought. It would be sensible for the three Administrations to consider whether it would be appropriate to agree that that should change.
In that context, I hope that after we have legislated it might be possible to draw up a clear, consistent and readily accessible guide to the law. These three simple amendments would amend the Indecency with Children Act 1960, the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, and the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It is all very well for us to pass such legislation; there might be people in the Library or political researchers and lawyers who can look at all those measures, but I am someone who, like others, has to try to find out what the law means, and we must ensure that the law is clear so that people can find out information without doubt.
9 pm
There may be an argument for consolidating legislation dealing with children, offences against children and the protection of children in the near future. Ministers might receive the support of the Liberal Democrats if they did so. There has been much recent legislation on such matters, and it would be better if those measures were put together. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the Government initiated the review of sexual offences legislation generally. Although they have allowed the review to be brought to a conclusion, the Minister makes the point that further work remains to be done. The report, which is before the Minister and has been published, will eventually lead to Parliament tidying up the legislation, some of which dates back to the 19th century and beyond.
We should bring the law up to date. It is right that old-fashioned, out-of-date, difficult to understand, discriminatory legislation should be done away with. It is also right that that should be done carefully, after serious consideration, but I hope that we shall use that opportunity to tidy the law as a whole. Children, young people and those who deal with them need to know where they stand. Parents, teachers, guardians and others who are responsible need to know where they stand. Equally importantly, those who think of offending need to know where they stand. The law must be clear; there must be no confusion or complexity. The clearer the law is on such matters, the better we shall do our job of protecting young people.

Mr. Boateng: I shall first deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). To avoid any doubt, given his initial

confusion about age, I should explain that the Children Act 1960 protects children under 14—hence my reference to children aged 13—and that the amendment would change the 1960 Act so that it covered children under 16, hence my reference to children aged up to and including 15.
On the other points that the hon. Gentleman makes, sometimes when listening to him speak about a range of issues, including devolution, I feel that he dwells among the angels, such is his general approach. I know of his deep and abiding faith, but I have to tell him that devolution is an area where even angels should fear to tread, so he will understand the reason why I, who most certainly am not one, do not intend to deal with devolution as he would urge me to do.
Codification is a virtue to which successive generations of lawyers—the hon. Gentleman is, of course, a lawyer—and others who practise in criminal law aspire. Indeed, it is a virtue to which we all aspire, but it has not yet been achieved. [Interruption.] We are all entitled to our aspirations, and he has shared his with the House, so I shall say no more about it.
I shall deal with the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who generously accepted and welcomed movement in this area. I appreciate his approach. He asked me to extend my gratitude for and recognition of the work by Baroness Blatch, among others on both sides in the other place. I do so.
We need to keep the law constantly under review. We are doing so. We need better to enforce existing law and the law as it will be amended. We are working closely with the police on that, improving their capability to use current law to deal with internet crime.
We need to pursue the issue of law enforcement and the internet through active support for the continuing work of the internet crime forum. We need to ensure increased responsibility by ISPs—internet service providers—and other providers of chatroom services, particularly in relation to chat services for children. We need greater education and awareness of the potential dangers in using chat services for parents, children and other internet users. We are doing all that. Yesterday, we announced further major investment of some £25 million, which is aimed at developing the police's capability to tackle internet crime.
No one listening to the debate, or reading the debates upstairs or in the other place, could be under any doubt that that is all activity in which we need to engage. Every penny is money well worth spending. That must be the way forward. In that spirit, I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 68 to 72 agreed to.

Clause 38

PROBATION ORDERS RENAMED COMMUNITY REHABILITATION ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 73, in page 21, line 7, after ("orders)") insert ("whenever made")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 74 and 75.

Mr. Hawkins: I do not wish to detain the House long, hut there are one or two points that I should like to make.
I appreciate that the Minister has moved the Lords amendment formally, but Members will appreciate that the official Opposition were hoping that the amendments that we tabled in time, but have not been selected for debate, would be able to be discussed. We were seeking to draw attention to our consistent concern, which we have raised on several occasions—in the House on Second Reading and in Committee, and again in another place in Committee and on Report—about the way in which the Government have sought to rename the orders, which could damage the standing of such orders in the courts and the way in which the public perceive them.
We felt that there was considerable importance in sticking to names that had been hallowed by usage, and that members of the public were very familiar with the terms "probation order" and "community service order". We also reckoned that we were quite clearly supported in that belief by the majority of those who are at the sharp end of the business. The point was repeatedly made that the National Association of Probation Officers was very supportive of the official Opposition's stance, which could be summarised as, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
We felt that there was no reason to rename the orders. We particularly felt that there was a concern that, as in another section of the Bill, the new names could bring the law into disrepute, especially because of the acronyms that would result from a community rehabilitation and punishment order. One does not have to be a genius to see how, even if punishment and rehabilitation were switched around, young criminals would be referring to the orders. We had much support on that in Committee, including from Labour Members who expressed the same concerns as those expressed by people at the sharp end.
I do not want to rehearse all the arguments at this stage in the Bill's passage. However, we were hoping very much that, even at this late stage, the Government might be persuaded to agree that no commencement order for the provision should be made until completion of the current review into the operation of sentencing powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The Government have commissioned that review and analysis of how this sphere of law will operate, and we thought that it was only logical not to put the cart before the horse. We were supported in that stance by the Liberal Democrats, both in Committee and, I think, in another place.
It was for that reason that we tabled our two amendments, both of which were called amendment (a). We were very sad that, although they had been tabled in time, neither of them were selected for debate. Nevertheless, although the Minister has moved this group only formally, we should like him to respond to our continuing concern—which was shared by Lords on all sides of the other House. We also recognise that there are continuing concerns among the professional bodies.
We do not think that the Government have made a sufficiently convincing case to change names that have been in the law for many years and that—as I know from my own professional experience—are perfectly familiar to all those who are involved with the courts. Everyone knows exactly what a community service order and a probation order are. The same argument can be made in relation to other spheres of the law that we debated earlier.
There is significance in titles and in using things that are familiar. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, unless Ministers can

present a compelling reason for change, it is necessary not to change. We do not think that Ministers have ever made a convincing case on this matter. Moreover, not only the official Opposition and Liberal Democrat Members object to the change. If the National Association of Probation Officers does not think that the Government have it right, surely Ministers should be persuaded to think again. They were not so persuaded in Committee or in another place, but we hope that, even at this very late stage, they might change their minds.
Even when a Bill is enacted, it is still for the Government to decide when to implement its various provisions. We hope very much that Ministers will decide to think again about this provision. They have agreed to think again about some of their own legislation in other spheres of the law and not to implement various provisions. After all the debates, at the very last minute they were persuaded that perhaps they did need to think again.

Mr. Boateng: We are unlikely to be persuaded, even by the rather interesting alliance between the hon. Gentleman and the National Association of Probation Officers. We noticed that alliance in Committee where, time and again, he would refer to NAPO briefings. However, I was not persuaded then, and I am not persuaded now. We are seeking to make the names of all the orders as stated, regardless of the date that they are imposed. We do not want there to be the possibility of any confusion about non-existent differences between the names.
The Opposition have become strangely attached to the rather arcane existing titles of community orders. They conveniently seem to have forgotten that the Home Affairs Committee Report on "Alternatives to Prison Sentences"—published in September 1998—concluded that the language used for community sentences was often misleading. The Committee said that the term "community service" carried with it inappropriate connotations of voluntary activity and recommended the alternative name of "community work order". We believe that the names of orders ought to reflect their content and purpose, hence our desire to change them in clauses 38 to 40. We further believe that it is right to change the names as soon as convenient.

Mr. Hawkins: I am surprised that even after all our debates, the Minister can still refer to the existing titles as arcane, as a number of Labour Back Benchers tried—as we did—to persuade him that there was no need to change. The existing names are familiar to all involved with the courts. It is not a simply a matter of an alliance between the official Opposition and the National Association of Probation Officers. All of the professional bodies at the sharp end think that there is no benefit in confusing everybody with new names.

Mr. Boateng: I hear and respect that view, but I hear, respect and agree with the all-party Home Affairs Committee, which has a different view. That is the nature of dialectic; there is an exchange of views, a thesis, an antithesis—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) getting very excited at the prospect of such a debate. We hear the arguments, but remain unconvinced—despite the forceful advocacy of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). It is right


to change the names as soon as convenient. We see no reason to await the results of the sentencing review which is, in any case, not a creature of statute. That review, which will report next year, is looking in much broader terms. Our need is to deal with the immediate situation and to enable community sentences to be better understood.
We see no reason to put in any restriction on commencement. I understand what has been a good argument, but the time has come to move on.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos 74 and 75 agreed to.

Clause 41

EXCLUSION ORDERS

Lords amendment:No. 76, in page 24, leave out lines 31 to line 38

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof, Government amendments (d) and (e) to the words so restored to the Bill, Lords amendment No. 79 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill, Lords amendment No. 80 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof, and Government amendments (c) and (d) to the words to restored to the Bill.

Mr. Boateng: Our amendments achieve two objects. First, they restore to the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew conditions. Secondly, they increase the maximum length of exclusion order and conditions to two years, rather than 12 months.
Amendments accepted in another place, which were moved on the advice of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, deleted from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to alter the maximum period of exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew requirements of other community sentences.
However, those amendments inadvertently deleted non-contentious powers that allowed the Secretary of State to add to the list of factors that must be taken into account when imposing exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew conditions. Notice was therefore given that it would be necessary to restore those powers. The amendments in lieu are designed to achieve the point of principle conceded in another place, but at the same time to ensure that the powers that ought to remain do remain.
Furthermore, as a corollary to the deletion of the delegated powers to extend the maximum sentence in these matters, the Government also gave notice that we would need to extend the maximum sentence for exclusion from 12 months to two years. In so far as any

further changes to the maximums will need to be carried out in primary legislation, the amendments grant courts the flexibility required to carry out the piloting of the provisions in the short term, by increasing the available maximum sentences.
I trust that hon. Members will see that these changes are not contentious, and I hope that we will not long delay the House.

Mr. Bercow: I am afraid that the Minister's trust is misplaced. We have considerable concerns on this front. Once again, the tactic is becoming clear. Whenever Ministers have something unpalatable to say to the House—this was certainly considered unpalatable in the other place—they deploy a mixture of a tone of sweet reasonableness and a weary cynicism about the possibility of anyone dissenting from their propositions.
We are here concerned with some extremely important matters: exclusion orders and exclusion and curfew requirements. There is a legitimate concern about the wisdom or appropriateness of the Government arrogating to themselves such Henry VIII powers in order to add to—or even, conceivably, subtract from—judgments made elsewhere.
It might prove in the end that the Government have a point, in which case, with my customary grace, I shall be happy to concede, but I am concerned about the extreme breeziness and insouciance—I use the words advisedly—with which the Minister dismissed the legitimate concerns expressed by some very distinguished Members of the other place.
To prove that I am not exclusively preoccupied with my noble Friend Baroness Blatch, I will instead focus briefly on Lord Russell, whom I regard as an immensely distinguished man and a thoroughgoing humanitarian. That does not mean that he is not wrongheaded, as most Liberal Democrats are, on all sorts of matters—of which, no doubt, more anon, in the weeks and months ahead—but there can be no doubt that he is concerned with justice and the rights of the individual and with propriety in our legislation and procedures.
Lord Russell is very worried indeed that the Government are riding roughshod over the views of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It has been asked for, and has given, its view of the Government's proposals. That view is singularly unflattering. However, all that the Minister can do is to chuckle at any expression of dissent. I find it perturbing that he is not only grinning in a somewhat unendearing fashion but is chewing something. He is certainly not chewing on the argument. If he did so, he might see that there is some sense in saying that the Government should not take to themselves powers to amend in a matter of this kind.
We are talking about the conditions of a sentence imposed on someone convicted of an offence. The idea that the Government should subsequently impose new conditions or variations in the places to which people are entitled to go, without obvious good reason or clear justification to the House, does not seem credible to me.
In seeking hastily to dredge up some justification for its shabby treatment of the other place, the Government argued that there was a precedent. They looked back to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and invoked an example of a similar procedure being applied.
There is, however, a key difference, which will have penetrated your fertile mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, almost as soon as I rose to my feet. That difference is that that august body, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee, had not been established when the 1991 Act was passed. It was not invited to pronounce and did not offer any criticism or commendation of that part of the 1991 Act. We now have the benefit of its view, which the Government disdain.
Many people who are concerned with the reform of offenders and involved in the legal profession, who have experience of the probation service and who are united in a passionate belief in justice and an opposition to overweening state power will be very concerned by the Government's extraordinarily laid back and somewhat arrogant attitude.
We rest our case. We are the defenders of the rights of the individual, and the opponents of the leviathan. The Minister has never been much of a champion of the rights of the individual. He has always been in favour of a big state. He is fast becoming an enthusiast for an overweening, centralised and unaccountable exercise of state power.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We were in danger of getting into some general and philosophical political theory, but we skirted away fairly quickly.
These amendments are important. I have a question about policy clarification, and a more detailed question on the matter to which the Minister alluded.
First, will the Minister confirm that the amendments would take away the Government's power in relation to three earlier parts of the Bill—clauses 41, 45, and 46, which deal with exclusion orders, curfew orders and exclusion requirements, respectively—and mean that the Government would no longer be able to vary the possible sentence of the court? We think that that is a very important matter, and it relates to the wider debate that has already received some consideration in this parliamentary year.
The Home Secretary came to the House almost a year ago to confirm the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the killers of James Bulger. It ruled that the court should set the tariff, and not a Minister. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that the Government accepted the ruling and would act accordingly.
The European Court appears still to permit Ministers to set the tariff for adults, as opposed to juveniles. That has not been corrected yet, even though some of us find it hard to understand how the European Court and the Government can argue that the courts can set tariffs only for juveniles and not adults.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he and his party oppose ministerial interference or intervention in setting any tariffs?

Mr. Hughes: I confirm that absolutely. Our view is very clear: it is for Parliament to pass the laws within which judges set sentences. It is not for Ministers to interfere to fix either the tariff or the sentence. Those are matters for the courts.
We also consider that there are some circumstances in which an indeterminate sentence may be appropriate. That view is shared by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). The later consideration of whether the person involved should be released should also be determined only by the court, and not by Ministers.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was right to ask the question. Our view is clear, and it differs from that of Conservative Members.

Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is nevertheless important for Parliament to indicate various scales and how seriously or severely it believes that certain offences should be punished? That is particularly important given that sometimes the courts have taken a very mild view on offences such as domestic violence. It has been right for Parliament to give the lead to indicate how gravely it believes that the court should consider those offences to be.

Mr. Hughes: There is a whole debate here. It is for Parliament to set the maximum and the minimum sentence and to review those as it thinks appropriate. The Government, or anybody else, can bring forward proposals. It is for the courts to seek consistency of sentencing across the country so that the courts do not impose arbitrary sentences in one area. It is of course open to individual Members of Parliament, to Parliament as a whole and to the Government to express a view.
Sometimes the court—the Court of Appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal, the House of Lords or the Lord Chief Justice—will pass a sentence that is intended to send a message regarding the view that society takes about a particular case. There are various ways in which it can be done, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's general proposition.
I do not want to delay the House further. I want to know that in accepting what the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the House of Lords has required and the amendments that the Lords have proposed, the Government will not seek, in this Bill or in other legislation, to hold to the Government and Secretaries of State the power to amend the length of sentences by order, as opposed to leaving that decision to Parliament. I share that view with the hon. Member for Buckingham. If we are to provide for longer exclusion orders, longer curfews and a period for which a curfew can be imposed, Parliament must decide the maximum period, not Ministers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have accepted that view, not just for these three clauses, but as a general matter of policy, in relation to the Bill and in general?
The Minister said that in relation to these three clauses, the Government proposed to have pilot schemes looking at exclusion order and curfew provisions. Is it just a theory and a plan so far, or are arrangements in hand for it to happen? If so, where and when does he anticipate that action will be taken to start the pilots and how long will they last?

Mr. Boateng: I will set the mind of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at rest for the avoidance of any doubt on tariffs and delegated powers. Tariff setting involves ministerial


decision making about an individual offender. We believe that the consistent position of successive Governments—Conservative and Labour—on tariff setting for adults, which has been supported by the court in Strasbourg, is right, and we intend to maintain that position. The hon. Gentleman should be under no illusions about that. We disagree profoundly with the Liberal Democrats on that issue.
On the delegated powers, those which have been removed from the Bill relate to amending the sentencing maximum within which the courts make sentencing decisions. The Government will not be able to alter the maximum or minimum period that courts can impose for those sentences. That is the effect of the provisions. Let us be absolutely clear about that.
No doubt the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) added enormously to the jollity of nations but, as a performance from the Dispatch Box on a serious issue, it was a bit wanting. Indeed, the early exit polls—at least on this side of the House—are not favourable. The hon. Gentleman must not expect a Florida recount if he goes on like this. It is not possible to accuse me of breezy insouciance—that is a new one for me—on the one hand and weary cynicism on the other. Breezy cynicism, maybe, but the hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of both.

Mr. Mike Hall: It is an oxymoron.

Mr. Boateng: I thank my hon. Friend, it is certainly a contradiction in terms, if not an oxymoron.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister is a contradiction in terms.

Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall not go down that road. We have had an interesting debate in which serious and important points have been made. We remain firmly of the view that I have expressed and I trust that, even if hon. Members regard the amendments as partly contentious, they will not regard them as overly contentious. I therefore urge the House to accept them.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 76 agreed to.

Government amendments (d) and (e) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Clause 42

DRUG ABSTINENCE ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 26, line 2, after ("(2)") insert (", (3A)")

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 87 to 94, 107 to 118, 125, 155 to 244 and 249 to 329.

Mr. Boateng: These amendments are minor, technical and consequential

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 78 and consequential amendments (a) and (b) agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 79 disagreed to

Amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 80 disagreed to.

Clause 48

BREACH OF COMMUNITY ORDERS: WARNING AND PUNISHMENT

Lords amendment: No. 81, in page 32, line 45, at end insert
("and
() where one of those orders is a curfew order that fact shall be disregarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) above")

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 82.

Mr. Boateng: Our original enforcement proposals attracted criticism of the mandatory nature of the sentence of imprisonment for breach of an order. Our objective is not to imprison large numbers of extra offenders, but to improve compliance with community sentences and enhance their credibility. Community sentences must not be ignored or treated lightly by offenders subjected to them. All too often, I fear, however, they are, and we require a more rigorous and consistent enforcement regime. We have reflected on the representations made to ensure that clause 48 is as effective as it can be. That is the reason for the amendments, and we have revised the clause to allow more judicial discretion while retaining certainty of outcome and providing that some penalty must be imposed for every breach of a community order.
We have reached the view that a fine would not be an appropriate penalty for reasons that hon. Members who have been practitioners in our courts will know only too well. In cases such as those concerned, the fine would be at a lower tariff than the community penalty breached, which cannot be right even if set aside from issues surrounding the enforcement of fines, which cause much exasperation to all concerned, not least the courts and honest, law-abiding citizens who fulfil their obligations.
There are several consequential amendments to schedule 6, and I hope that they will find wide support on both sides of the House.

Mr. Hawkins: I can be very brief. I am delighted with what the Minister has said. The Government have accepted several arguments advanced in Committee by the official Opposition. I recognise the spirit in which the Minister spoke, and there is great joy in heaven over a sinner who repenteth.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 82 to 99 agreed to.

Clause 60

SHORT-TERM PRISONERS: RELEASE SUBJECT TO CURFEW CONDITIONS

Lords amendment: No. 100, in page 41, line 34, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 37 and insert
("(2)(d) there is inserted—
(da) the prisoner is subject to the notification requirements of Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997;'"")

Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments (b) to (f) to the Lords amendment, and amendment (a) in lieu thereof.

Miss Widdecombe: Mr. Deputy Speaker, although—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—I am so sorry, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to correct myself—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps by the time I have finished with this, I might have been demoted to Deputy Speaker.

Miss Widdecombe: Mr. Speaker, I add to my correction belated congratulations and hope that that will make up for my mistake.
We are content with Lords amendment No. 100, but we believe that it would be improved by our amendment (a) in lieu, or, if that is a hopeless case, by the inclusion of amendments (b) to (f).
It seems extraordinary that, both in this and in the other place, the Opposition should have met with such resistance from the Government to our proposal to exclude from home detention curfew people who have been placed on the sex offenders register. The refusal of the Home Secretary to budge until faced with defeat in another place will do little to reassure the public as to his commitment to protect them from some of the worst offenders.
The most recent statistics issued by the prisons Minister make grim reading. They give added impetus to our amendment (a), which rightly provides for the end of the disgraceful system of special early release whereby prisoners leave custody even before the halfway point of their sentence. To date, 26,609 such lucky convicts have completed their sentence in the comfort of their own homes, thanks to the generosity of the Home Secretary who solves his prison population pressures by the simple expedient of sending the prisoners home.
Among those released in that premature fashion were 58 people convicted of manslaughter; seven of attempted murder; 235 of homicide or attempted homicide; four of incitement to murder; 3,437 of wounding; 178 of assault on a police officer; 33 of cruelty to children; 4,273 of drugs offences; 162 of arson; 319 of violent disorder; and 2,487 of burglary—to name but a few. Should we, therefore, be surprised that between them that collection of not insignificant offenders has committed a further 1,003 crimes while on the scheme? That means 1,000 more people who might never have been victims but for a scheme introduced by a man who claimed to be

tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Those statistics are merely an addition to the scores of people who are unlawfully at large and to the hundreds who have breached their conditions.
We take the victim somewhat more seriously, so although we should like to press amendment (a) to a vote, in the likely absence of success for the proposal to remove the scheme altogether and to consign it to a disgraceful history that we cannot too soon forget, we at least want to limit the application of home detention orders. Amendments (b) to (f) would do that.
Amendment (b) would exclude from eligibility for the home detention curfew scheme those convicted of assault on police officers. I remind the Minister of the statistics I cited: under the Home Secretary's scheme, 178 people who were convicted of assault on a police officer were released from prison before they were halfway through their sentence. What message does that send to our police officers? It is hardly surprising that we have problems with recruitment and retention, when the message from the Government is, "Don't worry, if you assault a police officer, you'll be getting out earlier than ever before".
Amendment (c) attempts to address what appears to be a gross inconsistency on the part of the Government. On one hand, they are proud of the fact that they managed to implement the policy on burglary—"three strikes and you're out"—introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Yet at the same time as glorying in that, they are passing a law that would make it possible for people who receive the minimum sentence for a third conviction to be released earlier than they would have been otherwise. That is a complete contradiction. It is nonsense.
Amendment (e) similarly addresses a contradiction. The Minister will be well aware that, under the immigration rules, entry into this country can be denied to people who have been convicted of crimes that can attract a sentence of 10 years or more. However, people who have been convicted of such a crime can, under the home detention curfew, be let loose in the community. We will not let people who have been convicted of such crimes into the country, but if they are convicted of them here, we will let them loose into the community.
Amendment (d) would give the court the ability to override the exercise of Executive power and it would provide for the court to be able to say that the special early release scheme would not apply to a particular offender. If the Minister has any respect for the independence of the courts, I would have thought that he would at least welcome amendment (d).
Amendment (f) endeavours to ensure transparency at the point of trial, so that it would be clear to the victim—who at the moment is bemused by the fact that the sentence served does not remotely match the sentence handed down—whether the extra early release will or will not be applied.
The home detention curfew scheme is probably the clearest possible message that the Government could send that they are soft on crime, soft on the cause of crimes and wholly indifferent to the fate of the victims who have been created by people who have been released from prison but who would not have been released but for the scheme. Therefore, those victims would not have been


created but for that scheme. The Minister should accept our amendments but, in the surprising event that he decides not to do so, we shall press them to a vote.

Mr. Boateng: I urge the House to reject all the amendments and to do so unequivocally. I regret the right hon. Lady's strident tone and her complete failure to recognise that there might be another view. There is another view and it is shared by Members on all sides of the House who have a clear and unambiguous record that demonstrates their determination to see that the House deals adequately and properly with crime and offending. That fact is evidenced by the Select Committee on Home Affairs giving all-party support to the home detention curfew scheme.
Let us not forget that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) put his name to an all-party report that specifically recommended the home detention scheme as providing adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element. It also made the point—a point that I reiterate—that the scheme gives prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison. That, rather than the shallow rhetoric of the right hon. Lady, is the best way to protect the public.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Boateng: No, the right hon. Lady has had her say. She can now listen and accept that there is another view. That is all we ask. We do not ask her to accept our view, but to recognise that another view can be rooted in concern to protect the public. That is the view shared by her hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and her colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. [Interruption.] It is no use the right hon. Lady denying that, because we have got the paper and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has signed it.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister now admit that my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) actually said that they believed in tagging as an alternative to prison, but not as a means of early release?

Mr. Boateng: Methinks the right hon. Lady doth protest too much. I make no such admission, and the absence of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is glaring testament to the truth of my assertions.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boateng: No, I will not. We have informed the House—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Front-Bench Members seem to be getting very excited.

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] I do not go in for bogus points of order.
Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that it is a tradition of the House, even if not a binding rule, that when one Member has referred to another, especially disparagingly,

he then gives way? The Minister referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Should he not give way?

Mr. Speaker: Those are matters for the Member's discretion, not for the Chair.

Mr. Boateng: I made no reference whatever to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I referred to the hon. Members for Aldershot and for Surrey Heath. For once, the name of the hon. Member for Buckingham did not come to my lips.
We have no intention of scrapping the home detention curfew scheme; it has operated highly successfully since its introduction, and we are taking measures to strengthen it still further. The proposal is concerned with statutory safeguards and public protection, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The debate was in danger of petering out and needed resurrecting, and I am glad that we have received some encouragement.
The remarks of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) were predictable because when we looked at the selection of amendments, we foresaw a rerun of the debate that took place in the Committee of the whole House, in which the Tory party attacked the home curfew and home detention schemes.
The Tories' criticism is wrong because they start from the principle that people who are sent to prison must be kept there for as long as possible, irrespective of whatever benefit there might be in releasing them.

Miss Widdecombe: indicated assent.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Lady agrees—such people should be imprisoned for as long as possible. It does not matter that we have one of the highest prison populations in Europe, that our prisons are full and we are having to build more, or that prison appears to have no effect on the crime figures. Putting more people inside and keeping them there longer appears to be the Tories' answer to crime and disorder. I have to tell the right hon. Lady that, as the Minister of State and the Home Secretary have said, the evidence does not support that answer.
The evidence shows that the vast majority of people who are released before the end of their sentence—always on the basis that they can be recalled if they reoffend—not only stay on the straight and narrow but start contributing to the community. They begin earning and are no longer a burden on the state, whereas it would cost a fortune to keep them in prison. Outside, they can once more pay their taxes, look after their kids and contribute to family life.
Of course, we must monitor the schemes, but the Minister was right to point out that the matter was tested by the Select Committee, which includes representatives of all parties, and there is a widespread view that we should try to reduce sentences where the risk of doing so is acceptable.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman seems to be easily dismissing the 1,000 victims who have resulted from the scheme. He has said that most people do not


reoffend, but does he agree that a significant number do and that that should give pause for thought? If not, what would he say to the victims?

Mr. Hughes: I absolutely share the right hon. Lady's concern that, as a Parliament and as a country, we must ensure that we better look after victims. The right hon. Lady and I, together with hon. Members across the House, have sought to increase the rights of victims and the protection for victims. If we never take any risks, there is only one logical conclusion: we lock someone up—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business)
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Lords amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Hughes: If we take the view that we should protect victims to the maximum, we would keep offenders locked up for ever. We would never let them out. Then, of course, apart from the other people inside, there would be no victims.
In all the cases under discussion, release would take place only after a risk assessment. If, after a period of trial and experience, a judgment is made that we should adjust the measure, adjust it we must. For the right hon. Lady to argue, so early in the scheme, that we should scrap it would not only prevent many people from starting a life of law-abiding activity early, but would mean that one of the incentives for the prisoner was removed.
For the first time this evening, we will support the Government in a Division. We believe that the scheme should continue. Enlightened penal policy demands that we retain the initiative and make sure that we use it wisely. To abolish it tonight would be wrong.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (b), in line 4, at end insert—
(db) the sentence is for any of the following offences—

(i) an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable);
(ii) an offence under section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault with intent to resist arrest);
(iii) an offence under section 18, section 20, or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm) committed against a constable in the execution of his duty.'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 386.

Division No. 333]
[10.2 pm


 AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Beggs, Roy


Amess, David
Bercow, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Blunt, Crispin


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Baldry, Tony
Brady, Graham





Brazier, Julian
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Loughton, Tim


Butterfill, John
Luff, Peter


Cash, William
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Mates, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Collins, Tim
May, Mrs Theresa


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Day, Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paice, James


Duncan Smith, Iain
Prior, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Randall, John


Evans, Nigel
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
St Aubyn, Nick


Fox, Dr Liam
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gale, Roger
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gibb, Nick
Spring, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Steen, Anthony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Streeter, Gary


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Syms, Robert


Grieve, Dominic
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawkins, Nick
Townend, John


Hayes, John
Tredinnick, David


Horam, John
Trend, Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Waterson, Nigel


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jenkin, Bernard
Whittingdale, John


Key, Robert
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Yeo, Tim


Lansley, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Letwin, Oliver
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. James Gray.




 NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ainger, Nick
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Alexander, Douglas
Bennett, Andrew F


Allan, Richard
Benton, Joe


Allen, Graham
Berry, Roger


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blackman, Liz


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Baker, Norman
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ballard, Jackie
Brake, Tom


Banks, Tony
Brand, Dr Peter


Barnes, Harry
Breed, Colin


Barron, Kevin
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Battle, John
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Bayley, Hugh
Browne, Desmond


Beard, Nigel
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Buck, Ms Karen


Begg, Miss Anne
Burden, Richard






Burgon, Colin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burnett, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gidley, Sandra


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Casale, Roger
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger


Cawsey, Ian
Goggins, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chidgey, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clelland, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clwyd, Ann
Hanson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Harris, Dr Evan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harvey, Nick


Cohen, Harry
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Connarty, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cooper, Yvette
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corston, Jean
Hill, Keith


Cotter, Brian
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cousins, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Cranston, Ross
Hood, Jimmy


Crausby, David
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hope, Phil


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Howells, Dr Kim


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Davidson, Ian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hutton, John


Dawson, Hilton
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dean, Mrs Janet
Illsley, Eric


Denham, John
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Dismore, Andrew
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dobbin, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jamieson, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Jenkins, Brian


Doran, Frank
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dowd, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Drew, David
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Flint, Caroline
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Flynn, Paul
Keetch, Paul


Follett, Barbara
Kemp, Fraser





Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Öpik, Lembit


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



Khabra, Piara S
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kidney, David
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kilfoyle, Peter
Palmer, Dr Nick


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pearson, Ian


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Perham, Ms Linda


Kingham, Ms Tess
Pickthall, Colin


Kirkwood, Archy
Pike, Peter L


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Plaskitt, James


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pollard, Kerry


Lammy, David
Pond, Chris


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Pope, Greg


Laxton, Bob
Pound, Stephen


Lepper, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Leslie, Christopher
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Levitt, Tom
Primarolo, Dawn


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Linton, Martin
Purchase, Ken


Livsey, Richard
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Quinn, Lawrie


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rammell, Bill


Lock, David
Rapson, Syd


Love, Andrew
Raynsford, Nick


McAvoy, Thomas
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McCabe, Steve
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rendel, David


McDonagh, Siobhain
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Macdonald, Calum
Rogers, Allan


McDonnell, John
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McFall, John
Rooney, Terry


McIsaac, Shona
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Roy, Frank


McNulty, Tony
Ruane, Chris


MacShane, Denis
Ruddock, Joan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McWalter, Tony
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McWilliam, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Salter, Martin


Mallaber, Judy
Sanders, Adrian


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Savidge, Malcolm


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sawford, Phil


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Shaw, Jonathan


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Merron, Gillian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Shipley, Ms Debra


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Singh, Marsha


Miller, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moore, Michael
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Morley, Elliot
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Soley, Clive


Mountford, Kali
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Spellar, John


Mudie, George
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stinchcombe, Paul


Norris, Dan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Oaten, Mark



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Olner, Bill
Stringer, Graham


O'Neil, Martin
Stuart, Ms Gisela






Stunell, Andrew
Wareing, Robert N


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)
Watts, David



Webb, Steve


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
White, Brian


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)



Timms, Stephen
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Tipping, Paddy
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Todd, Mark
Willis, Phil


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wills, Michael


Touhig, Don
Wilson, Brian


Trickett, Jon
Winnick, David


Truswell, Paul
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wood, Mike


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Woodward, Shaun


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Tyler, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Tynan, Bill
Tellers for the Noes:


Walley, Ms Joan
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Ward, Ms Claire
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 100 agreed to.

After Clause 60

Lords amendment: No. 101, to insert the following new clause—Amendments of the Sex Offenders Act 1997—
. Schedule (Amendments of the Sex Offenders Act 1997) (which amends the Sex Offenders Act 1997 in respect of persons who are subject to the notification requirements of that Act to make provision, in particular, for—
(a) altering the requirements,
(b) increasing penalties,
(c) enabling courts to make restraining orders, and
(d) improving the information held about such persons), is to have effect."

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 154.

Mr. Boateng: Amendment No. 102 provides new statutory duties to assess and manage risk and to consult and inform victims, whereas these provisions form the second part of the measures to be known as Sarah's law. The provisions in this part tighten existing protections and create new protections against sexual and violent offenders. They tighten part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997.
A number of other measures strengthen the protection afforded to victims by, for example, allowing the court at the time of sentencing to restrain an offender from certain actions, such as contacting the victim. They also provide for the Secretary of State to regulate the flow of information about the discharge of registrable offenders between and from institutions that detain them. That will help to ensure that accurate, updated information is available to the authorities about where such offenders are.
This important package of measures should be seen alongside and as an integrated part of a whole that includes the other measures that we debated at the commencement of our deliberations today. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Hawkins: I recognise that the Government have tried seriously to address the important issues on sex offenders. We acknowledge that the Government have tried to incorporate in the Bill some important extra powers and to tighten further—as the Minister put it—the 1997 Act to recognise the appalling crimes that have been committed in recent times.
We repeat our earlier point. We hope that the Government do not regard this as a completed task. We said that the Government will need to keep under review the problem of internet-related sex crimes. We hope that the Minister will confirm that those matters will be kept constantly under review. We believe that there might have to be further legislation to address some of the points that were made by my noble Friends. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in the spirit of seriousness with which all parties have taken these crucial issues tonight, as they did in the other place.
I do not want to detain the House for long on these amendments, but I hope that the Minister will give us that reassurance when he winds up this short debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We, too, made it clear from the outset that we hoped that there would be a consensus among the parties to amend the legislation at the first opportunity. In the summer, I said that, having reflected on the events surrounding the tragic death of Sarah Payne and the newspaper campaigns that followed, the Bill offered opportunities to make some improvements.
Some of us took the view from the beginning that the Sunday newspapers, such as the News of the World, were wrong to propose such a remedy, and we were proved right. It resulted in victimisation and inaccurate identification of people, who were confused with possible sex offenders. People tried to be judge and jury. That was an unsatisfactory and unhelpful approach. It was noticeable that the newspaper was unable to carry on the campaign because, as we predicted, it did not secure the co-operation of individuals.
It was important, however, for the public to learn three things. First, wherever they lived—in London, Portsmouth or elsewhere—they could discover what the local police policy was on dealing with people who were on the register. Would the police regularly record their presence? Would there be a regular check, and, if so, how regular would it be? The public are entitled to know, in their communities, what the police policy is. They are also entitled to know what the probation service policy is, because they are entitled to a sense of security. They are entitled to challenge the authorities—to challenge the way in which the authorities deal with people who are in the community, but are clearly a potential risk.
What the public are not entitled to know—I think that there was general consensus on this—other than in an exceptional case to which I shall come shortly, is exactly


where people live who may at some time in their past have committed a particular offence. That is wrong, first, because those concerned are entitled to rehabilitation and support while they return to society and, secondly, because if people are concerned or suspicious about a certain household, a certain estate or a certain resident—throughout my time as an MP, people have frequently come to me with such concerns—the duty of all of us is to ensure that the police are alerted and that they, the social services and the probation service check what is going on so that the law can act. But it is the law that must act, not individuals, although the law will have been prompted by the concerns of individuals.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most significant developments to emerge while these issues were being discussed was an incident in south Wales, where a mob of ignorant and prejudiced people confused the terms "paediatrician" and "paedophile" and made an appalling attack on someone who was actually an extremely well-qualified medical specialist? Does that not demonstrate the dangers of mob rule, which, sadly, has been fuelled by some of the less reputable parts of the media?

Mr. Hughes: Of course I agree. The summer produced frightening scenes in many of our communities. People were encouraged by rumour and innuendo to believe that they could deal satisfactorily in their own communities with people who, in many instances, were not offenders, although they might have shared a surname or a first name with an offender, or might have resembled someone who had appeared in a newspaper.
We learned a clear lesson: that it is for Parliament and public authorities to respond to public concerns. In the context of the proposed Sarah's law, we should note that Megan's law was not very successful in the United States. It would have been a bad idea to import it to the English legal system.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making some powerful points. Does he agree—further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said—that one of the most depressing and alarming features of the summer's public demonstrations was the sight, on our television screens, of children who had obviously been exhorted so to do holding placards urging, for example, the imposition of capital punishment for sex offenders? Was that not utterly wrong, and should not the House deplore it?

Mr. Hughes: Of course it was wrong, but in many cases those children's actions were instigated by their parents and other adults.

Mr. Bercow: I said that.

Mr. Hughes: Yes. Children were being used. We condemn the putting of children in the front line in other countries to make a case for adults standing behind them.
It is exactly that sort of manipulation of children that I
join the hon. Gentleman in condemning.
I have a question for the Minister about a matter that we suggested could be included in the Bill, but which does not feature in the Lords amendments. I know that there are difficulties in this regard. Lords amendment No. 154, which proposes a new schedule to the Sex Offenders Act 1997, contains a section dealing with people who give notice of their intention to leave or return to the country. That is obviously proper: if people are leaving the country we need to know that they are leaving, and if they are returning we need to know that too.
There is, however, a category of people who are not caught by the law: people who commit offences abroad—they might be British citizens—but who then return to this country. I know that there are difficulties with ensuring that we know about all those people, but reciprocity of civil and criminal judgments is now common practice and there is much more collaboration between countries. It is increasingly possible for the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, Interpol and others to be aware of people's movements, particularly if they have been subject to an order in another state. I shall give an example.
In the United States, the reporting requirements and obligations on a convicted sex offender to remain on the register are the same as in this country or even tougher and there is no reason why we should not be told when a person leaves American jurisdiction to come to ours so that the remaining processes can be dealt with satisfactorily. However, it is no consolation to people in any constituency in the United Kingdom to know that there is a general system for ensuring that those who have committed sex offences are known and are being monitored, but that some will slip through the net.
What progress have the Minister and his colleagues made in working out the legislation that we clearly need to plug a loophole that has been used and is a worry to a considerable number of the people of this country?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman refers to people convicted of sex offences abroad who move or return to this country. That important issue is being examined by a review group including the police, the probation service, children's organisations and others to see how best to strengthen the law. Although sex offenders are often wicked and determined people who seek to mask their movements across international boundaries, co-operation between police forces in this country and abroad is increasing. We need to link that with the provision of more information to our people and legations overseas. Those issues are being addressed and I have no doubt that the House will return to them to take forward and strengthen the law.
Members on both sides of the House can agree that continuing vigilance is necessary, but there is all the difference in the world between vigilance and the actions of vigilantes. Vigilance is an attitude to be adopted; the actions of vigilantes are to be deplored. We move forward from the events of the summer and the inspiration of Sarah Payne's life, but the tragic circumstances of her death mean that we must create something that does her honour. As such, I commend the amendments to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 102 to 105 agreed to.

Clause 63

FAILURE TO SECURE REGULAR ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL; INCREASE IN PENALTY

Lords amendment: No. 106, in page 43, line 2, at end insert—

("() This section shall apply only in cases where the failure to attend school is with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school.")

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof.

Mr. Boateng: I commend amendment No. 106 to the House. Concerns have been expressed that a stiffer penalty for failure to secure regular attendance at school would be unduly harsh in certain circumstances. Having listened to all the arguments, we propose to create a new and additional aggravated offence for truancy with a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine and/or three months' imprisonment. That would leave unchanged the current offence under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, but the new and additional offence would require parental knowledge and a failure to act without reasonable justification. We had a good debate in Committee and there was a good debate in the House of Lords. The points that were made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) have been taken on board in our deliberations and in our amendment.
10.30 pm
Our objective has always been to get parents to court, so that the seriousness of the offence can be brought to their attention—that is our purpose; it is not the imprisonment of parents. The failure to appear in court to answer a summons for that aggravated offence would allow the issuing of a warrant to secure attendance. That is enormously important. Anyone with any experience in the matter knows the importance of bringing home to parents in those circumstances the seriousness of their children not attending school, but the higher penalty would be linked only to the most serious cases where parents failed to take their responsibilities seriously. We do all we can to help parents to educate their children, but ultimately we need an effective legal sanction for parents who, despite extensive help, still do not fulfil their duty. At the moment—we have to face the fact—the sanction is simply not working. Eighty per cent, of parents prosecuted for school attendance offences fail to turn up at court. They are mostly fined in their absence, and the fines are sometimes as low as £1. That cannot be right. We must send a different message. I commend the measure because it does that. It builds on good practice in Newham, with police, education welfare officers and social workers all working together. It gives the courts, the police and education welfare the power that they need to protect and to secure the rights and interests of children in a good education. I commend the amendment.

Mr. Hawkins: As the Minister says, we had a good debate in Committee, but he did not refer to the equally important debate in another place, where there were extremely good speeches not only by Baroness Blatch but

by Earl Russell, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. One phrase came to mind. When Earl Russell criticised what the Government were saying, he used words that many of us will understand were accurate:
This clause altogether over-rates the power that some parents have over teenage children.
Nevertheless, we recognise the spirit of what the Government are seeking to do.
There was an important debate in Committee and in another place on the role of responsible officers and parents in relation to children who repeatedly play truant. That problem plagues many schools in many parts of the country. There will be a small group of persistent truants whose parents, as the Minister says, simply do not care to encourage their children to attend school, so we recognise that the Government are trying to deal with an important issue.
The Minister did not refer to what Baroness Blatch said. She wanted to know
the extent to which the schemes to reduce truancy in schools that have been put in place already at very great cost have been successful. Right across the country local authority schools have received money to help them produce strategies for reducing the number of young people who are truanting from school.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 927–9.]
She tabled questions for written answer about the result of the Government's policies. To all her questions, Baroness Blackstone's answer was that the Department did not know and that it would be disproportionately costly to find out the information. That is not an acceptable answer. We are talking about the use of taxpayers' money. If strategies are being developed, surely both Houses need to be given the proper answers. I hope that in due course there will be reconsideration of the importance of this House knowing chapter and verse about all that.
If we are to discuss the issues of truancy seriously, we need to know how existing systems are working. It is not acceptable for the Government to say that it is disproportionately costly to find out the information. If Parliament does not get the information, who on earth is going to get it? I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that point, which we think is important. We also welcome the contribution that the Liberal Democrats have made on the issue, both in Committee and in another place.

Jackie Ballard: As my noble Friend Earl Russell—whom the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) so much admires—said in a debate in the other place, he would have preferred to delete clause 69 entirely. As the Minister said, I tried to achieve the same objective in Committee. However, as my noble Friend was too late to attempt to delete the clause, he moved an amendment providing that it would affect only a parent whose child failed to attend school
with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1550.]
The other place accepted the amendment, which seems to have the same effect as the Government's amendments in this group. In the other place, however, it was widely accepted that, although a parent can register a child for school and even see the child through the school gates, the child can subsequently leave, and it is very difficult for the parent to know about or to control that truancy,


which obviously occurred without parental knowledge or complicity. It was also accepted that it is important to distinguish between parents who could not care less where their children are and parents who make every effort possible to ensure school attendance.
I still maintain that a £2,500 fine or three months' imprisonment is not the right way to deal either with parents who are culpable and plain inadequate or with parents who are simply not coping. I suspect that, even with the threat of such penalties, a large percentage of those parents will not turn up in court. They probably believe that the courts would not imprison them—especially if they have other, younger children—and that the courts would realise that they could not pay a £2,5000 fine.
I suspect that the?1 fines that the Minister mentioned were imposed because courts realised that people could not pay more. A?1 fine may sound ridiculous, but the courts may have realised that the parents did not have the wherewithal to pay a larger one. I think that ever more help and support for parents, not ever heavier penalties, are the answer to truancy. We have to help ensure that parents are able to bring up their children responsibly.
The Lords were constructive in their opposition to clause 69, and I am pleased that the Government have responded constructively to their improvement of the Bill. However, although I believe that the clause is improved, it would have been better if it had not been included in the Bill at all.

Mr. Boateng: I referred to the debate in the other place, and I linked it with the very good debate that we had in Committee in which the hon. Lady played an important part. We are still not at one with her on the issue, but I suspect that we never shall be. Although we desire the same objective, we approach the issue from a different perspective.
I commend the work of Earl Russell and of my noble Friend Lord Bassam on the issue. The deliberations of the other place have refined and developed the approach to the issue that we share with Earl Russell. That approach enables us to tackle the problem in a manner that sends a clear message.
I really do feel that we cannot accept fine levels in which the sum of £1 features. The notion that a £1 fine could ever be appropriate is absolutely absurd. We are not prepared to accept that such fines could ever be appropriate.
Information on the fines levied is not available centrally and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost. However, we know from research that the fines levied are lamentably low.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) referred to the evidence of success in tackling truancy. We have stemmed the flow in truancy that took place in the 1990s by determined action on the part of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Home Secretary, whose Departments have jointly taken initiatives in this area. I would commend to the hon. Gentleman and to Baroness Blatch a visit to one of the schemes; the one at Newham is particularly helpful. They would gather from such a visit that it is possible, through concerted effort by social

services, education, welfare and police, to make a difference. Our amendments give them and the courts the power to tackle this problem, and I commend them unreservedly to the House.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 106 agreed to.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have come to the end of the substantive debate and we will now go through the formalities to deal with the remaining amendments on the Order Paper. Given Mr. Speaker's interest in trying to modernise our procedures and the struggle that the occupants of the Chair and Members have had throughout the day in trying to following the procedure, could I ask whether there is a way in which all the non-contentious business that comes back here can be processed at a logical time or without having to go through this House? A lot of material comes back to us, but only a certain amount causes any contention at all. Could that matter be referred to whichever parts of the system are looking at modernising our procedures so that those here—let alone those outside—can understand what is going on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The hon. Gentleman—who has long experience of this House—ought to know that it is not necessary to raise that matter on a point of order at this point of the proceedings when it is perfectly open to him to write to the Procedure Committee to ask that it consider these matters. From the Chair, I can only proceed in line with what is laid down.

Lords amendments Nos. 107 to 120 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos 121 to 124 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 125 to 129 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 130 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 131 to 134 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 135 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 136 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 137 and 138 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 139 to 244 agreed to.

Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 245 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 245, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 246 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 247 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 247, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 248 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 249 to 329 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not too bad, was it, Mr. Hughes?
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 14, 15, 25, 39, 41 to 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 121 to 124, 135, 137, 138 and 246 to 248: Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Peter Luff and


Angela Smith; Mr. Paul Boateng to be the Chairman of the Committee; three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on the two social security motions.

Motion made, and Question out forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Jobseekers Allowance (Joint Claims: Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.

That the draft Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.].

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Council Chief Executive

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House to now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Dr. Ian Gibson: I shall approach this subject by illustrating how the chief executive of Broadland district council, which covers part of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), managed to achieve early retirement, a glorious pay-off and, for all I know, wonderful references. I raise it as a case study that requires Government action on two fronts: a public inquiry into this particular case, and an examination of the need to standardise the terms, conditions and powers of chief executives. The terms and conditions enjoyed by chief executives should safeguard their security of tenure—against political whims, for example—but they should not prevent a council from taking appropriate action where there is a clear need.
The individual concerned, Mr. John Bryant, banned elected persons from entering council premises outside of council or committee meetings, thereby interfering with the councillors' ability to carry out their duties on behalf of their voters. He negotiated his salary to disproportionate levels, given the size of the council, and became one of the best paid chief executives in England. There was no link to average earnings or inflation, as is the case with other groups of workers and constituents. He played a prominent role in his own work appraisal, and took on extra duties—at elections, and by monitoring affairs—to increase his earnings. He generally expanded his duties, and it was all done without council approval.
Mr. Bryant initiated a court case against the leader of the Labour group. That caused further court cases, and a court case is still pending that may cost the council tens of thousands of pounds. He made statements to the press without the council's approval. He brought the council into disrepute by attempting to control councillors, accusing them without foundation of breaking national codes, and in general took major decisions on his own, without recourse to elected members.
The zenith of Mr. Bryant's career came when he instructed that all the mail addressed to councillors at the council offices should be opened by council officers. Those officers could act on that mail if they felt it appropriate to do so, without disclosing that they had done so. Clearly, councillors did not like that and complained. Mr. Bryant said that he had the official approval of internal auditors. He stated publicly:
I cannot agree to your request not to open mail addressed to you and would suggest that in future you ensure that any mail is not routed through these offices.
In other words, he was telling constituents that they should write to their councillors only at home, if they did not want their private correspondence to be opened. The Controller of the Audit Commission, Andrew Foster, wrote that
the general principle must be that mail should be opened by the councillor to whom it is addressed or by someone authorised by them to do so.


I have had an influx of letters, from constituents and non-constituents alike, on those matters. One parish council clerk wrote:
I have written to Broadland District Council stating that members of my council were disgusted that the District Council was giving a person, reprimanded for alleged gross misconduct, an early retirement package worth around £270,000, and asked how the District Council could justify spending such a large sum of taxpayer's money for this purpose.
The answer that she received stated that
matters between a local government employee and employer were dealt with as exempt matters and therefore no information could be provided.
My correspondent adds that district councils should have informed parish councils, which have been encouraged to keep their precepts down. She said that the pay-off of £275,000 did not set a good example, and pointed out that it meant that council tax would rise. Finally, she wrote:
Mr. Bryant had taken jobs on and … was looking after himself rather than the tax payer. Parish Council members feel that he is being paid for being incompetent and that this situation should be re-addressed.
I am sure that such events are rare. Broadland district council was led for a time by a Conservative-Liberal Democrat alliance, and is now run by a Conservative majority. In most circumstances, such arrogance would not have been allowed to flourish. Where there is transparency and partnership between elected representatives and non-elected officers, such events could not occur. That they have happened requires that the public have alternative ways to access council procedures and hold a local government accountable.
Although a source of leaked information has suggested that there were five serious counts against Mr. Bryant, there was no public disclosure, and it was not possible for me to access information. When I wrote to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, the answer was again that such matters were between the employer and the employee, and that they could decide whether they were disclosed.
In a written question, I also asked whether the Audit Commission Act 1998 was appropriate to access the accounts of public bodies. The answer again was that it is the responsibility of each local authority to decide whether information on personal or contractual matters in a particular case is owed a degree of confidentiality, and to act accordingly.
I suggest that the events that I have discussed raise issues beyond the personal and contractual which, while a feature of the events, do not address the situation that set this whole sad affair into motion. For example, how are chief executives held to account in situations in which they practice autocracy, secrecy and bullying tactics, as in the case at Broadland? Dismissal of a chief executive is a cumbersome process and, as happened here, it is obviously easier to pay someone off than to have a proper investigation, which would happen in most employment situations.
In her letter of 10 May, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions also suggested that if I had any queries on value for money, I might approach the district auditors. Many councillors went to the district auditor because they were concerned

about the credibility of financial information on particular matters. Despite Mr. Bryant's entreaties, the auditor declined to identify the councillors who had raised the matter with him. In a confidential report to the council, Mr. Bryant alleged that the councillors had breached the national code of conduct by going to see the auditor. I think that that allegation would have been laughed out of any court in the land.
Even more bizarrely, not being able to identify the councillors, Mr. Bryant wrote:
In the absence of any other information—
that is, identity—
I assume the councillors were acting on behalf of the Labour Group and, therefore, the Group Leader must take responsibility for this breach and must be held accountable to the full council.
He went on to invite the council to take action against the leader by removing her from the policy and resources committee, which they did. The irony was that the leader of the Labour group was on holiday abroad during the whole period. On legal advice, the Labour councillors called a special council meeting and moved the reinstatement of the group leader to the committee, threatening the council with immediate legal action if councillors pursued the improper course put to them by Mr. Bryant.
I submit that nothing short of an inquiry into the behaviour of the council in this affair will satisfy my constituents. We need disclosure of the total on-going costs and the details of the final settlement. How were they negotiated, over what best years were they attained and how much employee time was involved in all this public hoo-hah?
We must ask how to prevent this from happening again. I would love to see the document giving the details of the early retirement package, and I think the public would too. They are certainly demanding that in their letters to me.
At a time when we are democratising local government, with cabinet structures and more public scrutiny, does my hon. Friend agree that this case illustrates the need to define the role and accountability of chief executives? We need to initiate procedures for councils to use when the chief executive is seen to be failing.
Last, but not least, and most importantly, councillors and the public should have the right to access key information. Will my hon. Friend please act?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): My hon. Friend has raised matters of great concern to him and his constituents. As he said, he has raised a number of points using Broadland council as a case study.
My hon. Friend has covered the following issues: he has referred to the events at Broadland council, particularly those concerning the actions of the chief executive. He has questioned whether those actions are consistent with what it would be reasonable to expect a chief officer to do in fulfilling his or her role properly. He asked what powers my Department has if a chief executive falls short of what is expected and a council wants to initiate disciplinary action. He also asked whether the outcome of events at Broadland, particularly the settlement agreed between the council and the chief


executive, was reasonable. Finally, he asked what steps the Government can and will take to ensure that concerns about the behaviour of council employees or even members can be dealt with more transparently in future.
My hon. Friend mentioned that legal proceedings are under way in relation to events at Broadland. An appeal by Mrs. Barbara Lashley against the decision of Mr. Justice Munby not to grant a judicial review will happen in a few weeks' time. That fact means that I must be careful about what I say since issues remain sub justice. I hope that my hon. Friend will not take that to mean that I am ducking the issues.
I have read all that I can on the case, including Mr. Justice Munby's report and reports prepared by my officials on what was going on at Broadland. Certain basic facts are in the public domain following events in May 1999. The chief executive, following discussions and events shortly after the election, barred Barbara Lashley from council premises—except for formal meetings—and applied several other sanctions to her which curtailed the extent to which she could fulfil her duties as a local councillor. The sequence of events that began then continues and will not be resolved until the further appeal is heard.
I am puzzled about one matter relating to events as they have panned out. The grounds on which the initial application for judicial review was made concerned the actions of the standards committee to which the case had been referred after the chief executive lifted his sanctions following correspondence from Mrs. Lashley's solicitors. The grounds for the review did not relate to the actions of the chief executive, which, as I understand it, have not been questioned in relation to his competence as monitoring officer to the council in applying the sanctions that were applied to Mrs. Lashley. We are yet to receive an answer to that point.
I cannot comment much more on circumstances at Broadland because of the point that we have reached in the legal process. My hon. Friend, however, more generally questioned whether the actions taken were consistent with what might reasonably be expected of a chief officer in fulfilling his or her role. By statute, councils are required to have a monitoring officer as well as a head of paid service and a chief financial officer. The post of chief executive is not specified in law; only those three posts are. Where a council appoints a chief executive, the post can combine the posts of head of paid service and monitoring officer or chief finance officer. The position varies from council to council.
Whatever the precise duties of the chief executive—in this case, I understand, he combined with that post the role of monitoring officer, which is a significant point—he or she has an important role to play in ensuring the proper discharge by the council of its statutory functions and the building of effective working relationships between elected members and council staff. Clearly, one can at the very least, without stepping too far over the mark, question whether that was the case at Broadland. Traditionally, chief executives have had to balance a number of overlapping roles: providing advice to councillors on policy and on the discharge of council functions; and building the corporate and managerial capacity of the organisation—working with councillors for the benefit of their communities.
In future, under legislation that we shall introduce, it will not be possible for a chief executive to combine the role of head of paid service with that of monitoring officer—as is currently the case in several authorities, such as Broadland. The increased demands that will be placed on those officers both by the new political structures and by the new conduct framework that we are introducing will, in our view, make the ability of one individual to hold both posts untenable, as well as increasing the likelihood of conflicts of interest between the two roles. My hon. Friend may feel that that has been the case at Broadland.
The roles of chief executives and monitoring officers in councils will be pivotal to the efficient operation of councils in this new environment. It is extremely important—as my hon. Friend points out—both that officers have the confidence of councillors and that councillors respect the integrity and independence of those officers, especially when they provide advice to councillors on the discharge of council functions.
Such advice may on occasion be unwelcome. It would undermine the impartiality of officers if the council were simply able to get rid of its chief executive when councillors disagreed with the advice of their officers. The statute therefore provides the chief executive officer and, in future, monitoring officers with protection by law. A designated independent person has to be appointed to investigate any alleged misconduct by a chief executive, or any attempt by a council to dismiss him or her. The person appointed must be acceptable to both parties and, if agreement cannot be reached, such a person must be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Although I realise that my hon. Friend is not happy with the resolution of the case involving the chief executive of Broadland district council, the matter has been resolved locally and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has thus not been required to—and cannot—play any part in the process. I must stress that any involvement is strictly limited to the appointment of an independent adjudicator. Once the adjudicator is appointed, the Secretary of State plays no further role—under current law—in the matter under investigation.
I acknowledge the strong views expressed by my hon. Friend on the case, but the council has dealt with the issue—however well or inadequately. It has not called on my right hon. Friend to appoint an independent adjudicator—under current legislation, that is the only route available to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Keith Simpson: The Minister points out that, as the council had followed certain procedures, she could not get involved unless there was a request for an independent adjudicator. Have there been cases involving a dispute with a chief executive, such as that at Broadland, which followed a similar pattern, or do the majority of councils in such situations ask for the appointment of an independent adjudicator?

Ms Hughes: I am sorry that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman much help, because my ministerial experience is limited to the past 15 months, during which time this is the only case that has come to our attention. I cannot speak with certainty about what happened before that.
My hon. Friend asked whether the outcome of the process agreed between Broadland council and the chief executive is a reasonable settlement. We do not yet fully


know the outcome, because an appeal has been made against the decision not to grant a judicial review to Mrs. Lashley. If she were to be granted a judicial review, there would be a wider judgment on some of the issues that have been raised. That might have a bearing on the outcome.
At one level, the settlement that has been reached is a matter for the council and the chief executive in that the council apparently did not initiate proceedings to dismiss him. We do not know what took place in the discussions between the chief executive and the council and we do not know whether he wanted to go or whether councillors had concerns that led to the discussions being initiated.
My hon. Friend referred to the district auditor and I was going to come to that point. From what my hon. Friend said, it was not clear whether the district auditor had been approached at an earlier stage in the proceedings to intervene to consider the proprietary of what was happening. However, the use of public money to reach a settlement with the chief executive is clearly a matter on which anyone can ask the district auditor to adjudicate. The question of whether there has been a good use of public money in the circumstances is one that the district auditor would be required to examine. It is in his remit to adjudicate not so much on value for money, but on whether public money has been used appropriately. If the auditor has not been asked to examine the settlement, that is one course that my hon. Friend can pursue.

Dr. Gibson: What would happen if the agreement around the settlement is secret and confidential and if everyone who took part in the discussions swore not to

disclose the details of the agreement? How can the district auditor overcome that secrecy? I understand that the public cannot discover the details, but can the auditor override a council that has made a secret and confidential agreement?

Ms Hughes: I shall obtain proper advice on that point. However, subject to that advice, I would say that nothing is outside the bounds of a district auditor's inquiry into the use of public money. I would be very surprised if the terms of an agreement that require the use of public money could be kept secret from a district auditor if he decided to examine the case. I shall obtain advice on that point, but it might provide a route that my hon. Friend might want to pursue.
One of my hon. Friend's main requests was for me to instigate an inquiry, possibly a public inquiry. In law, I cannot do that. Councils are directly elected bodies, and people who write to me with complaints about their councils are constantly surprised by the lack of powers that central Government have to intervene in their business. In the normal course of events we can trust our councillors and their senior managers to deal with issues appropriately, and it is right that we cannot intervene willy-nilly. Even when there is a belief, such as that described by my hon. Friend, that matters have not been handled properly, we cannot intervene. However, there may be recourse through the district auditor, and if my hon. Friend wants to pursue that, I will seek an official view on how best he can do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.